P.Vasantha And Others v. The Chairman (Sdm) And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/900/2023 P. Vasantha and others Vs.
The Chairman (SDM) and another Ms. Anjili Nag Mr. V.K.Biswas ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents August 24, 2023 [SR] Item No.9 The petitioner no.1 is the wife, petitioner no.2 is the daughter and the petitioner no.3 is the son-in-law of the respondent no.2.
The respondent no. 2 approached the Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal, South Andaman under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 with allegation that the petitioners were not permitting him to enter into his own property, despite multiple requests.
The Tribunal, on receipt of the petition from the respondent no.2, issued notice of hearing upon the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and hearing was conducted on as many as five occasions.
It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had submitted an undertaking in front of the Station House Officer, PS Pahargaon on 5th August, 2022 that they would vacate the subject property
within a month but despite such undertaking, they do not move out from the subject property.
The order passed by the Tribunal dated 14th August, 2023 impugned in the writ petition specifically mentions that the parties were heard. It further appears that the submission of the petitioner no.1 was also taken into consideration.
The Tribunal was of the opinion that as the property belonged to the respondent no.2, accordingly, the respondent no.2 had the right to enjoy the property.
The Tribunal passed the order directing the petitioner nos.2 and 3 to vacate the property within 15 days from the order failing which the Tehsildar shall execute the order with the assistance of Station House Officer. The respondent no.2 has been permitted to enjoy his own property after it is vacated by the petitioner nos.2 and 3.
Learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without supplying the copy of the petition filed by the respondent no.2 before the Tribunal.
It has been submitted that the respondent no.2 is involved in gambling and he is in the habit of selling of his property. There is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 with the sole intention of evicting the petitioners from the subject property has obtained such order.
The petitioner no.1 is a senior citizen and is being taken care of by the petitioner nos.2 and 3.
Further submission of the petitioners is that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and it is the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to pass such order.
The petitioners rely upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt S.Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 177 that the claim to remain in shared household cannot be obviated by passing order of eviction in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007.
Prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2. There is no proof of service of the writ petition upon the respondent no.2. The affidavit of service shows that the writ petition was posted for service on 21st August, 2023. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the proceeding was continuing against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Though the petitioner no.1 also approached the Tribunal with an application but there is no order passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner no.1 either for evicting her or directing her to vacate the property.
It appears that an order has been passed directing the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to vacate the property. The apprehension of the petitioners that the wife i.e the petitioner
no.1 may also be evicted, appears to be unfounded. There is no order directing the petitioner no.1 to vacate the property. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the married daughter and son-in-law of the respondent no.2. The petitioners contend that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are taking care of the petitioner no.1, who is a senior citizen.
It has been submitted that the property in question has two rooms, one of which is jointly occupied by the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 and other is used by the petitioner nos.2 and 3. The petitioners, through their learned advocate, undertake before this Court that they will permit the respondent no.2 to use his property and the respondent no.2 will not be restrained by the petitioners from entering into his own property.
It will be open for the petitioner nos.2 and 3 to take care of the petitioner no.1, but it does not necessarily mean that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are required to stay in the same property. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 may visit the petitioner no.1 for taking care of her.
The order impugned is accordingly not interfered with. It will be open for the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum for obtaining further relief. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
( Amrita Sinha, J. )