NARAYAN KONDIBA KOLEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 21/6/2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Senior Citizens Act"). By the said impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to confirm the Judgment and Order dtd. 12/12/2022 passed by the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners herein, seeking eviction of respondent No.3 from the premises in question, came to be rejected.

(2.) The subject premises in dispute is Room No.301, situated in Building No.5 of the Sewree Siddheshwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., located at Shri Ram Tekdi Path, T.J. Road, Sewree, Mumbai - 400 015. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the said premises is owned exclusively by petitioner No.1 and is a selfacquired property purchased from his own independent income and resources. It is further the case of the petitioners that after the untimely demise of their son, the said premises has remained the sole source of financial sustenance and livelihood for the petitioners in their advanced age. Alleging that respondent No.3, who is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1, is in unauthorized occupation of the said premises and that her continued occupation is adversely affecting the petitioners' right to residence and maintenance, an application was preferred under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act seeking her eviction.

(3.) The said application was vehemently opposed by respondent No.3. In her written reply, she contended that her husband, who was the son of petitioner No.1, passed away on 15/4/2021 due to complications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. She further averred that she has two minor children who are presently attending school, and the entire burden of raising and supporting them has fallen solely upon her shoulders. It was her case that petitioner No.1, being a retired government servant, is now residing at his native place and had earlier expressed an intention to sell the premises in question following the death of his son. She submitted that she has no other alternate accommodation and that she, along with her children, has been residing in the said premises for the past several years. Hence, she prayed that the application seeking her eviction be dismissed.