JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let a copy of the memorandum of appeal (the original of which was filed in Calcutta) be kept on record. Once the original memorandum of appeal (which has already been despatched from Calcutta, vide lay note of the learned Registrar of the Circuit Bench dated 31.10.2017) is received by the Registry, the same shall be kept with this file. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the stay application. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order, dated 17th August, 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 043 of 2017 (Shri Sheikh Khalil and another v. The Lieutenant Governor and others). The appellant before us Sahidun Nisa was the private respondent No. 5 in the writ proceeding. The subject-matter of challenge before the writ Court was the order, dated 17th June, 2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2007). 3. From the facts of the case available on record, we notice that one Sheikh Khalil (aged about 80 years), a resident of a village near Baratang, North and Middle Andaman District, had filed a complaint letter dated 16th June, 2015 against his son, Shri S.K. Hasamudden and daughter, Ms. Sahidun Nisa before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the said Act of 2007. The principal allegation was that his son and daughter were torturing him and his wife, Smt. S.K. Kamarun Nisa (a septuagenarian lady) and were attempting to dispossess them of their house property. A reference on the same subject was also received by the Maintenance Tribunal from the office of the Chief Secretary, A & N Islands on 28th May, 2015. 4. Consequently, notices were issued to all the parties to appear before the Maintenance Tribunal to present their case. Shri Sheikh Khalil and his wife, Smt. S.K. Kamrun Nisa, their daughter Sahidun Nisa and their two sons Shri Hasamudden and Shri. Niamuddin attended the proceedings. The proceedings culminated upon passing of an order dated 14th January, 2016, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: "During the proceedings it is observed that the petitioner and his wife are not compatible with their daughter Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa. The proceedings culminated upon passing of an order dated 14th January, 2016, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: "During the proceedings it is observed that the petitioner and his wife are not compatible with their daughter Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa. Their relations have gone sour to the extent that they started quarrelling and abusing each other even in front of this Tribunal. Chances of compromise and peaceful living together are very bleak between the parties. The Act broadly deals with the maintenance of Senior Citizens including parents, however it contains a separate chapter (Chapter-V) dealing with the protection of life and property of senior citizens. The present case pertains to that chapter. Welfare as defined in the Act is a comprehensive term that includes all amenities necessary for senior citizens. Due respect and emotional support besides physical and medical care cannot be excluded from the definition of welfare. Nothing can be more disappointing and more painful for a person when his/her own children do not behave properly that too at such a fragile age of 80s. Therefore, Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa D/o. Shri. Sheikh Khalil is hereby directed to vacate the shop and house of her father within sixty days from the date of issue of this order. SHO Baratang is also directed to ensure protection of life and property of the petitioner and his wife and to ensure compliance of this order." 5. Against this order dated 14th January, 2016, the daughter of Sheikh Khalil and Smt. S.K. Samrun Nisa, namely, Ms. Sahidun Nisa, preferred a statutory appeal before an Appellate Tribunal constituted under the said Act of 2007. The Appellate Tribunal while observing that it had no power to evict the daughter from the house and that it has only the power to order maintenance as per the Acts and Rules, proceeded to pass an order on 17th June, 2016, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: "However, Shri Sheikh Khalil has stated in his representation dated 17/5/2016 and also submitted before the Tribunal that he doesn't want kind of help from his children i.e. he doesn't want any maintenance. After considering all the facts on record and as per Acts and Rules, the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal has no power to evict Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa from the house. The Maintenance Tribunal directing Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa to vacate the shop and house of her father is ultra vires. After considering all the facts on record and as per Acts and Rules, the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal has no power to evict Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa from the house. The Maintenance Tribunal directing Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa to vacate the shop and house of her father is ultra vires. The order of the Maintenance Tribunal is hereby set aside. The Appellate Tribunal also has no power to evict Smti. S.K. Sahidun Nisa from the house. Therefore, the request of Shri Sheikh Khalil is declined. The local Station House Officer, Police Deptt. is directed to give physical protection to the parents and directed to submit monthly report to the Tribunal in this regard. The appeal is accordingly disposed off." 6. Against this order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 17th June, 2016, the 80 years old father and the 70 years old mother of Ms. Sahidun Nisa, namely, Shri. Sheikh Khalil and Smt. S.K. Kamarun Nisa approached the writ Court, which passed the impugned judgment and order dated 17th August, 2017, being the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal. The learned single Judge while considering the entire gamut of the matter had framed two issues, which are as follows: "(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, 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?" 7. An exhaustive judgment was delivered, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow: "13. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the record and also considering the decisions cited above by Mr. Prasanth I find from records that the petitioner constructed the said building on the Government land. It is also evident from records that the on 23rd November, 1990 a notice under Section 202 of A & N Islands LR & LRR 1966 was also issued to the petitioners by the respondent authority pertaining to the aforesaid landed property. It is also found that the petitioners allowed the respondent No. 5 to look after their shop as the petitioner No. 1 earn an amount of rupees the thousand pension per month. It is also found that the petitioners allowed the respondent No. 5 to look after their shop as the petitioner No. 1 earn an amount of rupees the thousand pension per month. Taking advantage of the petitioners' soft corner upon the respondent No. 5 the respondent No. 5 tried to evict the petitioners from their property against which the petitioners approached before the tribunal by filing an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. That application was allowed by the Learned Tribunal. Unfortunately that order was set aside by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 17th June, 2016 thereby holding inter alia that the tribunal/appellate tribunal has no authority to evict the respondent No. 5 from the house. Accordingly, the tribunal's order was set aside by the appellate authority. 14. At this juncture it is profitable to consider sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the said Act of 2007 which defines "Property" as under: "Property means property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property." The definition of "Property" in the Act of 2007 quoted above squarely supports the claims and contentions of the petitioners, particularly right of the petitioner No. 1 in the property. The contention of the respondent No. 1 is in the property. The contention of the respondent No. 1 in this respect is clearly misplaced. Therefore, in my opinion since the petitioners have enjoying the property since long from 1959, are quite elderly people, they are entitled to protection as provided under Act of 2007. It is not out of place to mention that respondent No. 5 is not a divorcee or deserted woman. Respondent No. 5 is enjoying and occupying the petitioners property i.e. dwelling house including the shop room with her family members thereby putting the petitioners in a miserable condition as ventilated by the petitioners herein. 15. Accordingly, I find and hold that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law and in facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Resultantly the impugned order dated 17th June, 2016 is set aside and quashed thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 14th January, 2016. 17. 15. Accordingly, I find and hold that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law and in facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Resultantly the impugned order dated 17th June, 2016 is set aside and quashed thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 14th January, 2016. 17. I direct the private respondent No. 5 to vacate the shop and house of her father within sixty (60) days from the date of communication of this order as directed by the Learned Tribunal. Needless to mention that SHO Baratang is also directed to ensure protection of life and property of the petitioner No. 1 and his wife and compliance of the tribunals order. 18. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs." 8. The only question sought to be raised by the learned advocate for the appellant in the present appeal is whether under the provisions of the said Act of 2007, there is any scope for passing of an order of eviction against the appellant, that too from a property not "owned" by the private respondents. 9. Since the facts of the case have been elucidated hereinbefore, we only need to look at the scheme of the relevant statute in order to determine the answer to the question as posed by the appellant. 10. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is a central statute which came into existence in order to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (Emphasis supplied by us). 11. The promulgation of the said Act of 2007 was preceded by a Bill which was tabled before the Parliament with the following statement of objects and reasons: "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are not forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are not forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals mat ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons, Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provision to claim maintenance for parents. 2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make provisions for setting-up old age homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older persons. The Bill further proposes to provide better medical facilities to the senior citizens and provisions for protection of their life and properties. 3. The Bill, therefore proposes to provide for: (a) appropriate mechanism to be set up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens: (b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens; (c) for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons: (Emphasis supplied by us). (d) setting-up of old age homes in every district. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives." 12. Consequently, the Bill having been passed by both houses of Parliament received the assent of the President on 29th December, 2007 and entered the statute book as the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It came into force subsequently in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 21st May, 2008. The statement of objects and reasons as quoted hereinbefore clearly provides, inter alia, for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property for older persons. (Emphasis supplied by us). It is this mechanism in the form of a Maintenance Tribunal that considered the pitiable situation of an elderly couple - an octogenarian man and his septuagenarian wife - upon conducting a field inquiry in the matter. (Emphasis supplied by us). It is this mechanism in the form of a Maintenance Tribunal that considered the pitiable situation of an elderly couple - an octogenarian man and his septuagenarian wife - upon conducting a field inquiry in the matter. This is evident from the order dated 14th January, 2016 where the Maintenance Tribunal observed, inter alia, to the effect that the elderly couple were not compatible with their married daughter and their relation had gone sour to the extent that they started quarrelling and abusing even in front of the Tribunal. The Tribunal went on further to observe that chances of compromise and peaceful living together were very bleak between the parties. It was under such circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case broadly fell under Chapter V of the said Act of 2007, which deals with protection of life and "property" of senior citizens. For such and further reasons as stated in the order dated 14th January, 2016, the Tribunal directed Smt. Sahidun Nisa (being the appellant herein) to vacate the shop and house of her father within 60 days from date of issuance of the order. The Station House Officer, Baratang, was also directed to ensure protection of life and liberty of Shri Sheikh Kalil and Smt. S.K. Kamarun Nisa and to ensure compliance of the order. 13. While going through the various provisions of the Act of 2007, we notice that the scheme of the statute is wide enough in order to ensure that a senior citizen may lead a normal life. In order to lead a normal life, a senior citizen requires protection of both his/her life as well as his/her "property". The statement of objects and reasons as quoted hereinbefore clearly provides for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and "property" of older persons. The word 'property' has been statutorily defined under sub-section (f) of section 2 of the said Act of 2007 which reads as follows: "2(f). "Property" means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property." 14. It is thus seen that the statutory definition is wide enough to include in its fold "rights or interest" in such "property". "Property" means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property." 14. It is thus seen that the statutory definition is wide enough to include in its fold "rights or interest" in such "property". As such, ownership of a property is not sine qua non for a senior citizen to seek its protection under the scheme of the statute. 15. Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007, which falls under Chapter V, even goes to the extent of providing for the State Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and "property" of senior citizens. The scheme of the Act of 2007 which provides, inter alia, for protection of life and "property" of older persons, nowhere specifically excludes passing of an order of eviction/vacation by a competent Tribunal in respect of a property where an elderly parent or a senior citizen has a 'right' or 'interest', if the same is required to be passed for the purpose of protection of both life and "property" of the older persons. As such, the statute is wide enough for the purpose of issuance of such an order, as was passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on 14th January, 2016, while correctly appreciating its scope. 16. That apart and in any event, in an intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order dated 17th August, 2017 in W.P. No. 043 of 2017, no such palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. The impugned judgment and order as observed earlier, is exhaustive and moreover has been rendered with cogent reasons. 17. For such reasons as stated above, we do not find any cause for interference in respect of the impugned judgment and order dated 17th August, 2017 in W.P. No. 043 of 2017 passed by the learned single Judge. 18. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed along with the application for stay. Debi Prosad Dey, J. I agree. Later: Immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment, the learned advocate representing the appellant prays for stay of operation of the order, which is considered and refused.