ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the orders in proceedings in case No.C/388/2020 dated 01.02.2020, where respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over premises bearing H.No.9-4-617, Sapthagiri Colony, as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri T. Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is daughter-in-law of respondent No.4; that son of respondent No.4 got married with petitioner and blessed with one daughter; that petitioner and her husband with the permission of respondent No.4, dismantled the old house and constructed a new structure i.e., H.No.9-4-617, (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) in the year 2015 by obtaining loan of Rs.18,75,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Limited; that petitioner’s husband expired on 05.11.2016, after death of her husband, monthly installments are being paid by her. He further submitted that petitioner has not objected to the stay of respondent No.4 in the subject property, however, respondent No.4 walked away from the subject property and made complaint before respondent No.3; that respondent No.3 without considering the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules, 2011 (for short, “the Act, 2007”) in proper perspective has directed the petitioner to vacate the subject property vide impugned order dated 01.02.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.4 is a pensioner retired from Singareni Colliers Company and if the impugned order dated 01.02.2020, is implemented, the petitioner would be put to hardship. He further submitted that the petitioner is co-applicant of the home loan obtained from LIC Housing Finance Limited and monthly installments are being paid by her. He finally submitted that if the impugned order is given effect to, the petitioner and her daughter will be homeless and thus, prayed to allow the writ petitioner and set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare would submit that the respondent No.3 by duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the Act, 2007 is being enacted for the safety and welfare of senior citizens and the impugned Order is in accordance with the objects of Act, 2007, and petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that respondent No.4 purchased land admeasuring 242 square yards and constructed a house in the said land; that his son expired on 05.11.2016 and subsequently, the petitioner herein got contracted 2nd marriage on 09.10.2019, and expelled the respondent No.4 from the subject property. He further submitted that respondent No.4 is aged 70 years and he is suffering with several diseases in view of his old age and he has no other shelter to reside, therefore, approached the respondent No.3 for redressal of his grievance; that respondent No.3 taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, and provisions of the Act, 2007 as well as Rules made thereunder, has rightly directed the petitioner herein to vacate the subject property. He further submitted that admittedly, respondent No.4 purchased the land and constructed house therein and thus, he is entitled to stay in the subject property; that respondent No.4 being senior citizen and being protected under the Act, 2007 and Rules, 2011, he is entitled to live with security and dignity and finally submitted that writ petition is misconceived and devoid of any merit and as such, liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court vide order dated 13.02