The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is welfare legislation where 'maintenance' includes the right to peaceful residence. The Tribunal can order eviction of children in cases of permissive occupation causing harassment, regardless of the senior citizen's financial sufficiency or absence of a formal transfer deed.

J & O (CAV)

UDGMENT RDER

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. Heard Mr. T. Bharali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Ms R. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.E.Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order (CAV) dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 3504/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellants came to be dismissed and the order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri directing eviction of the appellants from the self-acquired property of their father, namely, respondent No. 2 herein, was upheld.

3. The facts are in a narrow compass.

4. The respondent No.2 is a senior citizen and the father of the present appellants. He is the admitted owner of the property in question, being a residential building, standing on his self-acquired land situated at Dhubri Town.

5. The appellants, who are two sons, along with their respective family members, including their wives, were residing in a portion of the said premises with the permission of the respondent No.2.

6. Alleging neglect, harassment and interference with his peaceful enjoyment of the property at the hands of the appellants and their family members, the respondent No. 2 approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri, seeking eviction of the appellants from the premises.

7. The pleadings of the respondent No. 2, before the learned Tribunal, disclose that the dispute was not projected merely as a claim for monetary maintenance, but as a grievance of prolonged physical, mental and emotional harassment, coupled with deprivation of the peaceful enjoyment of his self-acquired property. The respondent No. 2 specifically pleaded that after permitting the appellants and their family members to reside on the 1st floor of the building out of parental affection, the relationship subsequently deteriorated and the appellants allegedly subjected him to sustained neglect and harassment.

8. The respondent No.2 further pleaded before the Tribunal that the dispute had arisen concerning a financial transaction and certain fraudulent property dealings belonging to the respondent No. 2 behind his back, allegedly undertaken by the appellants in collusion with a third party, by forging the signature of the respondent No.2, which, according to him, caused serious mental agony and insecurity in his old age. The pleadings also refer to several criminal proceedings, complaints before the police authorities and proceedings before other forums arising out of