SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows: The following issues are to be determined in this case hereunder. (i) Whether the respondent authorities are under obligation to ensure protection of the life and property of the petitioners as per Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, I 2007? (ii) Whether the private respondent No. 5 has any authority to pressurise the petitioners to oust them from the house which was constructed by the petitioners in the Government land and petitioners admittedly have been residing over there since 1959? Fact of the Case
(2.) The petitioners' case in a nutshell is as follows:- That the petitioner No. 1 is an octogenarian aged about 81 years and living in Kainchi, Krishna Nagar, Nilambur along with his wife petitioner No. 2 who is a septuagenarian aged about 75 years. Both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 reside in a land which was encroached long back in the year 1959. Since then petitioners have given representation to the Revenue Department for regularisation of the land in their favour. Upon receiving such representation the Deputy Commissioner had issued letter to the petitioner No. 1 with instruction to apply for regularisation of the land when proclamation inviting plans are issued by the revenue authorities. On 23rd November, 1990 a notice under Section 202 of A and N Islands LR and LRR 1966 was also issued to the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the property in question. Even on 12th May, 2015 petitioner No. 1 had given further representation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner, Rangat Middle Andaman to initiate action against respondent No. 5 being the daughter and one of his son namely Nasmuddin who started troubling the petitioners to dispossess them from their house thereby putting the petitioners life in a miserable condition. Since the respondent authorities failed to pay any heed to the petitioner No. 1 's representation therefore the petitioner No. 2 without finding any any alternative again made a representation on 21st September, 2015 to the Director of Social Welfare thereby ventilating their grievances with prayer to protect their life and land property under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The respondent No. 5 who is the married daughter of the petitioners has started staying at the petitioners' house with her husband, the respondent No. 5 married of her own choice. After marriage the respondent No. 5 started residing in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana (Punjab). She came for her first child delivery to Baratang in the year 2004. She returned to her matrimonial house after some months. During the second child delivery in the year 2007 again respondent No. 5 came to the Port Blair and during her stay at Baratang she got information that her husband's leg got fractured. Therefore, her in-laws demanded money for treatment of their son (husband of the respondent No. 5) from the petitioners. Unfortunately the petitioners sent money to respondent No. 5's in-laws house for treatment of her husband. Needless to mention that after recovery the son-in-law of the petitioners also came to Baratang and started residing with the petitioners. Resultantly the petitioners were compelled to look after the respondent No. 5 and her family members including her husband. The petitioners started a small shop in their house incurring day to day expenditure. Since the respondent No. 5 started living with the petitioners therefore the petitioners had handed over the shop to their daughter, (respondent No. 5) to run the same and earn her livelihood as the petitioner No. 1 is receiving monthly pension for Rs. 10,000/- pension. It is also the case of the petitioners that whenever the petitioners' elder son Hasmuddin visited the house of the petitioners during holidays the respondent No. 5 became furious and picked up quarrel with the petitioners thereby forcing them to leave the house. Furthermore, the respondent No. 5 and her husband also picked up quarrel' with the petitioners and used filthy languages. The petitioners being the elderly people cherished some hope that their daughter, respondent No. 5 would amend her behaviour towards the aged petitioners. But unfortunately her behaviour and attitude towards the petitioners deteriorated day by day. Not only that respondent No. 5 started pressuring the petitioners to vacate the house construced by the petitioner No. 1 in the government land and are in the possession therein since 1956 till date. Against such intolerable behaviour of the respondent No. 5 and her husband petitioners made repeated representation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner Rangat Middle Andaman to initiate action against the respondent No. 5 and also one of his son namely Nasmuddin who also joined her in troubling the petitioners and they are trying to grab the petitioners' house dispossessing the petitioners therefrom. Left with no alternative ultimately the petitioner filed petition before the Maintenance Tribunal suit under Maintenance Welfare and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act of 2007 in short). It is also the case of the petitioners that during the hearing before the tribunal the CDPO, Rangat conducted personal field enquiry and made honest effort to reconcile the issues between the parties but her effort went in vain. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 5 stated before the tribunal that she will vacate the house of her parents even though she has purchased a house site at South Creek at Baratang. Thereafter ultimately on 14th January, 2016 the Tribunal by its order directed the respondent No. 5 to vacate the shop and the house of the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. Challenging the said order the respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. On 17th June, 2016 the appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Tribunal thereby holding that the appellate authority has no power to direct the respondent No. 5 to vacate the shoproom as well as the house of the petitioners. The order of the Maintenance Tribunal was thus set aside by the appellate authority. Assailing the said order the petitioners filed the present writ petition.Submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties
(3.) Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that under the said Act of 2007 the tribunal has every power to direct the respondent No. 5 to vacate the petitioners' property and to handover the shoproom and the house of the petitioners.;