BANITA Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNA-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that she is aggrieved by a direction that had been given on 23/7/2019 (Annexure P-3) by respondent No.2-Chairman Tribunal that the petitioner should live in the ancestral house by vacating the present premises, which order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on 23/6/2022 copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-5.

(2.) As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially married to elder son of the respondents namely, Ashok, who had unfortunately passed away. Thereafter, petitioner was married with the younger brother of Ashok namely, Rajpal and out of the said wed lock, there is a girl child born namely, Priyanka. The respondents' father-in-law who is aged 75 years as well as the mother-in-law who is aged 70 years, filed a petition under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as '2007 Act') for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question where petitioner is in possession of two rooms so as to reallocate her to the ancestral house.

(3.) The said application was decided by the Tribunal on 23/7/2019 (Annexure P-3) and keeping in view the report of the Tehsildar that there is a house of the respondents-applicants which is also located in the Abadi Deh of village Lohani, the direction was given that the petitioner should live in the said ancestral house instead of the property which she is actually residing.