Court emphasizes the necessity of thorough fact evaluation before eviction under the 2007 Act, prioritizing vulnerable individuals' dignity.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the authority envisaged under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (herein after referred to 2007 Act) by which, the direction has been given to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question which belongs to respondents No. 2 & 3-senior citizens.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the rights to get the premises vacated is inherent under 2007 Act, but the competent authority is still required to evaluate that whether the facts and circumstances of a particular case demands the eviction or not.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India S.L. P. (C) No. 26651 of 2023 titled as ‘Samtola Devi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others’, decided on 27.03.2025, the competent authority while giving direction of eviction from the premises under 2007 Act, have to first evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case.

RIYA

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner in the present case is a 48 years old separated single woman, who has to maintain her son and she has been directed to vacate the premises in question by the Tribunal vide order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is bed ridden and presently she is undergoing dialysis after every 15 days therefore, directing her to move out of the premises in question especially when she does not have any other place to live in, will not be appropriate and these facts have been ignored by the authority concerned while passing the order of eviction against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 -senior citizens submits that respondent No. 2 & 3-senior citizens are also bed ridden and want their premises to be vacated from their daughter-petitioner on the ground that their daughter abuses them.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 further submits that the said premises which is sought to be vacated is locked and the petitioner is not residing in the said premises.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

9. As per the settled principle of law, the passing of an eviction order by the competent authority envisaged under 2007 Act is inherent, but the same has to be passed by appreciating all the facts required. If a senior citizen is asking for vacation of the premises and other party who is sought to be vacated has a valid justification to stay in the said premises same has to be appreciated while passing the order.

10. As per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of RIYA India in Samtola Devi’s case (supra), the discretion to pass an order of eviction lies with the authorities envisaged under 2007 Act by appreciating the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. In the present case, the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner only on the ground that the premises in question belongs to the respondents No. 2 & 3- senior citizens and the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question. Solely on that basis the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in question.

12. Further, the petitioner has pleaded before this Court that she is not medically fit and is bed ridden. She is suffering from several ailments such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and she is also undergoing the procedure of dialysis due to her kidney failure for which, she has to be hospitalized after every 15 days. That being so, once, it is a conceded fact that the petitioner is not medically fit and nothing has come on record to show that she has an