SWAMI THAPASYANANDA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, ('the Act' for short) is empowered to order eviction of a tenant in a building for the benefit of a parent or senior citizen.

(2.) The short facts of the case are the following : The fourth respondent was holding an item of property with a building therein. Though she had executed a settlement deed in respect of the said property in favour of her daughter and grandson, she continued to possess and enjoy the property. While so, on 16.3.2015, the fourth respondent let out the building in the property to the petitioner for a period of eleven months. According to the petitioner, though the period of lease is over, he is continuing to occupy the building as a tenant by holding over. While so, the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner directing him to vacate the building. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P4 notice has been issued by the Tahsildar as directed by the first respondent, who is exercising the powers of the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act, in execution of an order passed earlier on an application for maintenance preferred by the fourth respondent. It is contended by the petitioner that the Tribunal constituted under the Act has no authority to order eviction of the petitioner from the building of the fourth respondent. It is also contended by the petitioner that in so far as the order attempted to be executed is an order passed without notice to him, the same cannot, at any rate, be enforced against him. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P4 notice in this proceedings.

(3.) The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The contention raised by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit is that in an application for maintenance preferred by her under the Act against her daughter, it was found by the Tribunal that she is entitled to possess and enjoy the building occupied by the petitioner and it is on account of the said reason the Tribunal has ordered the petitioner to vacate the building. It is, however, conceded by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 notice has been issued by the second respondent as required by the Tribunal in enforcement of the order passed in the proceedings.