JUDGMENT : A.C. Behera, J . This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the final order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati. 2 . The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the O.Ps of this writ petition being the old father and mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and old father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner Nos.2 & 4 of this writ petition filed Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati against the petitioners in this writ petition arraying them as O.Ps praying for directing the O.P. Nos.3 & 4 to vacate the house situated on plot No.1433/4139 Ac0.040 decimals under Khata No.215/1063 at Sai Nagar in Mouza Paralakhemundi, to direct the O.Ps to pay them monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and to pass such other orders in their favour as the Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice stating in their complaint petition that, they (petitioners in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 and O.Ps in this writ petition) are old and senior citizens and they are the parents of the O.P. Nos.1 & 3 and parent-in-laws of O.P. Nos.2 & 4. The house situated on plot No.1433/4139 under Khata No.215/1063 in Mouza Paralakhemundi exclusively belong to the O.P. No.2 (mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and mother-in-law of the petitioner Nos.2 & 4). The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are staying separately from them since last 25 years. When the O.P. No.1 was infected with Corona, then the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 stayed separately from them without taking any care and two years thereafter, they petitioner Nos.3 & 4 entered into the house of the O.P. No.2 situated on plot No.1433/4139 with a malafide intention to drive both the O.Ps in this writ petition out forcefully from that house and started torturing them (O.Ps) physically and mentally. So, they (O.Ps) apprehended danger to their lives by the attack of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 in this writ petition. The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 did not take any step to prevent the O.Ps from the attack and assault of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4. So, they (O.Ps) apprehended danger to their lives by the attack of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 in this writ petition. The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 did not take any step to prevent the O.Ps from the attack and assault of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4. For which, without getting any way, they (O.Ps in this writ petition) approached the learned Tribunal by filing Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 being the complainants against the petitioners in this writ petition as per the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 praying for directing them (O.Ps) to vacate the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139 immediately and to restrain them (O.Ps) from entering into the same in future, to pass an order for granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to them (complainants) and to pass such other order/orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3 . Having been noticed from the learned Tribunal in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023, the O.Ps (petitioners in this writ petition) objected to the same by filing their joint objection taking their stands that, the complainant No.1 (father of O.P. Nos.1 & 3) is a retired S.I. of police and he is a pension holder. The O.P. No.1 in that Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 (petitioner No.1 in this writ petition) being the eldest son of the complainants took all the burden of the family and looked after the welfare of the family and he has funded sufficiently not only for the marriage of his sisters, but also for establishing his younger brothers and soon after the retirement of the complainant No.1, he had undergone treatment with bypass surgery and for such treatment, the complainant No.1 spent all his service and retiral benefits. For which, the O.P. No.1 in that Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 (petitioner No.1 in this writ petition) took all the burden of his father including his medicine expenditures. For which, the O.P. No.1 in that Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 (petitioner No.1 in this writ petition) took all the burden of his father including his medicine expenditures. As, he was actively involved in a real estate business, for which, about 8 to 9 years ago, he had funded the complainants in purchasing the property vide Plot No.1433/4139 and they (petitioner Nos.1 & 3 of this writ petition) wholeheartedly funded in constructing the house on Plot No.1433/4139 and as such, the building on Plot No.1433/4139 has been constructed by the expenditures incurred by them (petitioner Nos.1 & 3 in this writ petition), though Plot No.1433/4139 under Khata No.215/1063 has been purchased and the same has been recorded in the name of their mother (complainant No.2) exclusively. For which, they (complainants) are trying to take advantage of the same depriving them (petitioner Nos.1 & 3 in this writ petition) from their legitimate rights. As, he (O.P. No.1 in Complaint Case No.1 of 2023) made love marriage to O.P. No.2 without the consent of the complainants, then the complainants shown their clandestine attitude towards them only for non-receiving dowry from the parent of the O.P. No.2 and for such reason, the complainants did not allow the O.P. No.2 to enter into the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139. The O.P. No.3 in the Complaint Case No.1 of 2023 being the 2 nd son of the complainants, he was staying away from the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139 since the 2 nd delivery of his wife i.e. O.P. No.4 and when they were interested to return back to the house, then the complainants demanded for the completion of the finishing works of the 1 st floor of the building from them and for the furnishing of the 1 st floor of the building on Plot No.1433/4139, the O.P. No.3 has spent Rs.10,00,000/-, but still then, complainants at the instance of their two married daughters and their husbands prevented them (O.P. Nos.3 & 4 of the Complaint Case No.1 of 2023) from entering into the finished 1 st floor of the building and attempted to kill their minor 2 nd daughter on the public road. For which, there was scuffle and altercation. Therefore, a case is pending. For which, there was scuffle and altercation. Therefore, a case is pending. As such, in order to deprive the O.Ps in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 (petitioners in this writ petition) from their legitimate share in the building situated on Plot No.1433/4139, they (complainants) filed complaint petition alleging false allegations against them. That apart, the two sons-in-law of the complainants are press reporters and they are utilizing their all powers to harass them supporting their parents illegally. The complainant No.1 is drawing pension nearly about Rs.40,000/- per month and both the complainants are leading their lives lavishly in the ground floor of the building situated on plot No.1433/4139 and the said building is their joint family house. For which, no burden can be fixed upon them (O.Ps in the Complaint Petition) to pay monthly maintenance to the complainants. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not empower the parents like the complainants to throw away their children like them from the joint family house. For which, their complaint petition is not only bad in law, but also the same has no legal sanctity. Therefore, the complaint petition filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable as well as for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and lack of cause of action. 4 . After hearing from the both the sides, the learned Tribunal i.e. Sub- Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paralakhemundi disposed of the Complaint Case No.1 of 2023 (Misc. Case No.01 of 2023) (Senior Citizen) on dated 30.10.2024 assigning the reasons that, “since both parties expressed their own claims and are not in a position of compromise to live together, the case thus remained unsettled. Moreover, this tribunal since has limited powers under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and is not competent to pass any such orders with regard to vacation of house, therefore, the petitioners are hereby advised to move civil Court in this regard. Regarding maintenance, this Tribunal has no orders in this context, as the petitioners have not claimed for maintenance. The orders of the Tribunal dated 07.07.2023 for vacation of house by O.P. Nos.3 & 4 thus rescinded.” 5 . On being dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed in Misc. Regarding maintenance, this Tribunal has no orders in this context, as the petitioners have not claimed for maintenance. The orders of the Tribunal dated 07.07.2023 for vacation of house by O.P. Nos.3 & 4 thus rescinded.” 5 . On being dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of 2023 (Senior Citizen) by the Sub-Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paralakhemundi directing the parties to move Civil Court without allowing the prayers of the complainants, they (complainants) challenged the same preferring Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gajapati as per Section 16 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 being the appellants against the O.Ps arraying them as respondents. 6 . After hearing from both the sides, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Paralakhemundi allowed that Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 preferred by the appellants (complainants) as per the order dated 30.06.2025 and directed the respondents to vacate the house of the appellant No.2 immediately and live away separately, so that, the appellants (senior citizens) of Gajapati District shall be able to live with security and dignity giving liberties to the parties to move competent Civil Court as regards to dispute, if any, on right over the immovable property and communicated the said order to both the parties as well as the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi, IIC, Model Police Station, Paralakhemundi for their information and necessary action assigning the reasons that, “the properties, on which the building stands, the same has been recorded in the name of the appellant No.2 Smt. Anusuya Mohapatro. The respondent Nos.1 & 3 are the sons of the appellants. The Respondents Nos.2 & 4 are the daughters-in-law of the appellants. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are staying away separately from the appellants and respondent Nos.3 & 4 are staying in the building of the appellant No.2. The appellants being the senior citizens alleged that, the respondents have no right over the property and they have entered forcibly into the same and they are quarreling, assaulting and attempting to take away their lives. For which, they filed Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 before the Tribunal-cum-Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi and they (appellants) want that, the respondents to vacate the house and to live elsewhere. For which, they filed Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 before the Tribunal-cum-Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi and they (appellants) want that, the respondents to vacate the house and to live elsewhere. When as per the Rule 19 of The Orissa Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector shall perform the duties and exercise the powers mentioned in sub-Rules 2 & 3 of Rule 19 of The Orissa Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, so, as to ensure that, the provisions of the Act, 2007 are properly carried out in his district and when it is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that, life and property of the senior citizens of the District are protected and they will be allowed to live with security and dignity, for which, in view of the said provisions, it is hereby ordered that, the respondents (O.Ps.) in Misc. Case No.01 of 2023 shall vacate the house of the appellants (complainants) immediately and live away separately. So that, the appellants (senior citizens of the Gajapati District) shall be able to live with security and dignity.” 7 . On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati with a direction to the respondents (petitioners in this writ petition/O.Ps in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023) for vacation of the house of the appellants, the respondents thereof challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioners against the appellants arraying them as O.Ps praying for quashing the above impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi. 8 . I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the O.Ps. 9 . In order to assail the impugned order passed by the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gajapati in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners (O.Ps in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023) relied upon the following decisions i.e. (i) Writ Petition (L) No.31614 of 2025; Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vrs. Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal and another (ii) Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020; Smt. S. Vanitha Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (iii) 2025 INSC 404 ; Samtola Devi Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 10 . Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal and another (ii) Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020; Smt. S. Vanitha Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (iii) 2025 INSC 404 ; Samtola Devi Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 10 . During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, when during the course of hearing of the Complaint Petition No.1 of 2023, the complainants (O.Ps in this writ petition) have abandoned their claim for maintenance against the O.Ps limiting/restricting their claim only for eviction against the O.Ps from the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139 and when the complainants had filed their petition vide Complaint Case No.1 of 2023 under Section 4 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, then, Appellate Tribunal i.e. the Collector, Gajapati should not have passed the impugned order on dated 30.06.2025 directing the respondents to vacate the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139. For which, the impugned order of eviction passed by the Appellate Tribunal (Collector, Gajapati) against the petitioners of this writ petition in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 cannot be sustainable under law and the same is liable to be quashed. According to him (learned counsel for the petitioners), there was no scope, jurisdiction, power or Authority of the Appellate Tribunal for passing an order of eviction against the O.Ps, when the complaint petition was under Section 4 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and when Section 4 of the said Act, 2007 provides, only for granting maintenance. For which, the Appellate Tribunal had no power for passing the impugned order for eviction against the O.Ps in Complaint Case No.1 of 2023 (petitioners in this writ petition). 11 . In the complaint petition as well as in the depositions of the complainants (senior citizens) before the Tribunal, they have specifically stated that, the O.Ps are torturing them (complainants) physically and mentally and they are also entering into their house with their malafide intention only in order to drive them out from the said house and they are also trying to take away their lives attempting for the same on several occasions. For which, they (complainants) are apprehending danger to their lives by the O.Ps (petitioners in this writ petition). Therefore, they are under duress. For which, they (complainants) are apprehending danger to their lives by the O.Ps (petitioners in this writ petition). Therefore, they are under duress. For which, they (senior citizens) are staying inside the house most of the times under lock and key and their present ages are 81 & 75 years respectively. 12 . The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial statute and the same has been drafted/enacted for the welfare and benefit of the senior citizens in order to protect them from oppressions and tortures by their children and relatives. 13 . It is the settled propositions of law that, “beneficial statute like the the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules thereof must receive liberal construction inconsonance with objects to be served by it. Courts & Tribunals should adopt purpose oriented approach. It is the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to discern the intention of the legislature interpreting it. The beneficial statute should be given purposive construction, which should be in the line of the object of the legislation. The Tribunals and Courts can exercise their powers to pass orders for eviction of a child or a relative from the property of the senior citizens, when there is breach of obligation to maintain the senior citizens.” 14 . Here in this matter at hand, when, the old mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 of this writ petition i.e. O.P. No.2 is the owner of the building/house situated on Plot No.1433/4139 and when she along with her old husband (O.Ps in this writ petition and complainants in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023) are residing jointly in that house and when she (O.P. No.2 in this writ petition) is not agree for the joint residing of her adult sons and their wives (petitioners in this writ petition) with them in that house on Plot No.1433/4139 and when they (senior citizens) have alleged allegations against them that, they (petitioners in this writ petition) are subjecting them to mental and physical tortures and when she (old mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3) desires for the eviction of her sons and their wives from her house on Plot No.1433/4139, then at this juncture, the Tribunal and Court should consider the prayer for eviction of the senior citizens liberally exercising the beneficial provisions of The Act, 2007 in their favour. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Urmila Dixit Vrs Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in 2025 (3) Civil LJ 341 (SC) that, The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules thereof are the beneficial statutes. The beneficial statutes must receive liberal construction inconsonance with the objects to be served by it. Court or Tribunal should adopt purpose oriented approach. Literal construction be avoided. It is the duty of the Court to discern the intention of legislature while enacting it. Beneficial statute should be given purposive construction, which should be in line with its object. Statement of objects, reasons and preamble of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 shows that, it is indented towards more effective maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, it is as such beneficial piece of legislation. In earlier cases Supreme Court has highlighted that, it is social obligation of both sons and daughters to maintain their parents, who are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, Court is bound to advance social justice to them, when such case comes before it. (Paras 8 & 11) (ii) In a case between Ritesh Khatri Vrs. Shyam Sundar Khatri reported in 2026 (1) CCC 110 (Rajasthan) that, If, father allows his son/daughter to continue in possession of his house or property or its portion, same does not, by itself, create any legal right in favour of the child to claim that, properties as his own, unless property is ancestral or of Hindu Undivided Property. Injunction against the children sought for by the father was allowed. (iii) In a case between Anil Kumar Tiwary Vrs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 664 (Jharkhand) that, Property in question is self-acquired property of senior citizens. Petitioners being son and daughter-in-law are conjointly fighting with senior citizen. Petitioners claiming right to live in suit property, as earning of son is not sufficient to hire separate house and daughter-in-law has right to live in house with full dignity. Allegation of senior citizens is that, petitioners have been subjecting mental torture to him. Thus, he wants to evict both his sons and daughters-in-law. Petitioners rightly evicted. (paras 3, 6 & 7). (iv) In a case between Suresh Sharma and Anr.. Vrs. Allegation of senior citizens is that, petitioners have been subjecting mental torture to him. Thus, he wants to evict both his sons and daughters-in-law. Petitioners rightly evicted. (paras 3, 6 & 7). (iv) In a case between Suresh Sharma and Anr.. Vrs. Dhanwanti Sharma reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 079 (Rajasthan) that, property of mother. Eviction of son and daughter-in-law. Mother despite owner of the suit property was ousted out of it by son and daughter-in-law and was meted out with severe ill treatment including mental, social and physical abuse by them. She categorically stated that, living with the petitioners would pose a threat to her life and mental well being. Son and daughter-in-law rightly evicted from the suit property. (Para Nos.15(ii), 16 & 17) (v) In a case between Namdeo S/o Babuji Bangde Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 131 (Bombay) that, Eviction of son and daughter-in-law residing in self-acquired property of senior citizens—Safety and security of senior citizens shall be in jeopardy unless son and daughter-in-law are evicted—Son is not expected to brand his aged father a ‘swindler’ or then allege that, aged parents have lost mental balance—Eviction order upheld by observing that, it is absolutely necessary to ensure the physical and emotional health and safety of parents. (Paras 8 & 16) (vi) In a case between Krishan & Anr. Vrs. The Deputy Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Panipat & Ors. reported in 2024 (1) Civil Court Cases 477 (P & H) that, property of mother. Eviction of sons. Mother is a 70 years old widow lady and is owner of property. It is irrelevant, whether the petitioners have any house or not, as it is the right of mother, which is to be seen under the Act. In order to ensure the protection of mother, eviction of the petitioners is necessary. Eviction order upheld. (Para 7 & 10) (vii) In a case between Deepak Kumar and Anr. Vrs. District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Hoshiarpur and Anr. reported in 2024 (2) Civil Court Cases 747 (P & H) that, property of senior citizen. Eviction of Son. Mother is owner of suit property. She is an old person having no source of income and is mentally and physically weak. Petitioners have misbehaved with mother and did not provide her with basic needs. Mother is not residing in the suit property. Eviction of Son. Mother is owner of suit property. She is an old person having no source of income and is mentally and physically weak. Petitioners have misbehaved with mother and did not provide her with basic needs. Mother is not residing in the suit property. All ingredients as required under the Act for grant of relief to senior citizen are fulfilled. Petitioners rightly evicted. (Paras 7, 10 & 11) (viii) In a case between Ravi Kumar Vrs. Deputy Commissioner- cum-Appellate Tribunal, Jhajjar and others reported in 2024(1) Civ.C.C. 492 (P & H) that, Property of senior citizen—Eviction of son—petitioner son contended that, suit property is ancestral property—However, no document or material on record to show that, property is ancestral in nature, in which, petitioner had any right—More so, petitioner himself raised the plea in written statement that, he had contributed in purchasing the house in question—plea of property being ancestral is contrary to said plea—Mother of petitioner is thus, exclusive owner of suit property—Order of eviction upheld. (Paras 6 & 10) (ix) In a case between Rajeswar Prasad Roy Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civil Court Cases 403 (SC) that, Eviction of son and daughter-in-law from the self-acquired property of senior citizen. Senior citizen 75 years of age. Son and daughter-in-law have not only encroached upon self-acquired property, but also threatened senior citizen of false criminal complaints, abusing and creating hurdles in running of Rest House and thereby causing mental and physical harassment to old parents. It shall be a defeat of purpose of the Act, if appellant is not granted the benefit of eviction against respondents. Respondents evicted. (Paras 11 & 12) (x) In a case between Sachin and another Vrs. Jhabbu Lal and another reported in AIR 2017 (Delhi) 1 (at Para 15) that, where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that, the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life. 15 . Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that, the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life. 15 . The propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court that, the sons and daughters-in-law like the petitioners in this writ petition cannot claim their right of residence in a building exclusively owned by their mother and mother-in-law i.e. O.P. No.2 in this writ petition only by virtue of their relationship with her. 16 . 16 . Here in this matter at hand, when undisputedly, the property (upon which building is situated) is in the name of the O.P. No.2 i.e. in the name of the mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and mother-in-law of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 on the basis of the purchase of the same in her name and when the sale deed as well as the revenue records are showing that, the said house and the building situated on Plot No.1433/4139 exclusively belong to the O.P. No.2 and when there is no material in the record to show that, the petitioners in this writ petition are disable in any manner for earning their livelihood and when O.Ps in this writ petition being the old parents of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and old parents-in-law of O.P. Nos.2 & 4 are apprehending danger to their lives by the petitioners in this writ petition and when they (senior citizens) have specifically stated in their petition as well as in their depositions that, the petitioners in this writ petition are giving mental and physical torture to them and they are trying to evict them forcefully from the building of the O.P. No.2 situated on Plot No.1433/4139 and when by taking to the above allegations alleged by the O.Ps in this writ petition into account, the appellate Tribunal i.e. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gajapati has passed the impugned order for eviction of the petitioners from the said house in order to allow the senior citizens (O.Ps in this writ petition) to live with security and dignity for the purpose of achieving the noble object of the Act, 2007 and Rules thereof, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, any interference with the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Collector, Gajapati in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 through this writ petition filed by the petitioners shall defeat/frustrate the main purpose/object of the beneficial legislation i.e. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 17 . It is very fundamental in law that, mere mention of a wrong provision or incorrect provision or omission to mention the exact provision, there is no bar for providing the relief sought for in the application or petition, because the contents of the petition shall determine the nature of the petition. 17 . It is very fundamental in law that, mere mention of a wrong provision or incorrect provision or omission to mention the exact provision, there is no bar for providing the relief sought for in the application or petition, because the contents of the petition shall determine the nature of the petition. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja (D) By Lrs Vrs. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah & Ors passed in Civil Appeal No.10521 of 2013 that, Mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application, if the power to pass such an order is available with the Court. (ii) In a case between P.K. Palanisamy Vrs. N. Arumugham & another reported in (2009) 9 SCC 173 that, mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order, if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. (iii) In a case between Nakul Chandra Biswal Vrs. Badaru Srinivasa Rao & Anr. reported in 2025 (4) Civ.C.C. 571 (Andhra Pradesh) that, Mere mention of wrong provision does not determine the nature of petition, which will be available for such an application. (Para 9) (iv) In a case between Kamal Kishore Soni Vrs. Indira Devi & Ors. reported in 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 630 (Rajasthan) that, merely mention of the wrong provision ought not to be viewed so seriously so as to reject that application. Because, an application not to be dismissed or not to be rejected on the ground of non-mention of provision of law. It is the duty of Court to decide the case on the basis of the relief sought for by the applicant in the application applying the correct provision of law. 18 . In view of the propositions of law clarified in the ratio of the above decisions, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the application under Section 4 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 of the senior citizens cannot be sufficient for passing the order of eviction has become inacceptable under law. Because, as per law, it is the duty of the Tribunal and Courts to apply the correct provisions of law according to the averments and prayers made in the petition for providing the required relief to applicants/petitioners like the O.Ps in this writ petition at hand in order to achieve the noble object of the beneficial legislation of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 19 . The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicated in Para No.9 of this Judgment are not applicable to this matter at hand, on facts for the reasons as follows:- (i) In the decision between Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vrs. Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal and another reported in Writ Petition (L) No.31614 of 2025 (Bombay) relied on behalf of the petitioners, the Senior Citizen instead of residing in the house in question, he along with his wife were residing in a separate residential premises situated in Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society Limited, but his son and his son’s wife (against which the order of eviction was sought for) were residing in that house in question. In that case, there were no allegations of cruelty and/or harassment against the son and son’s wife (against which the order of eviction was sought for) by the senior citizen. For which, the said decision has become inapplicable to this matter at hand on facts. Because, here in this matter at hand, the senior citizens (complainants in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023) have established physical and mental torture on them by their son and son’s wife i.e. O.P Nos.3 & 4 in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 and they (senior citizens) are residing in the house in question belong to the senior citizen (complainant No.2 in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023), in which, the son and son’s wife of senior citizens are residing against their wish and subjecting them (senior citizens) to cruelty. (ii) In a case between Smt. S. Vanitha Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors reported in Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020 (SC) relied on behalf of the petitioners, The land on which, the house in question was constructed, the said land was originally purchased by the son of the applicants/senior citizens. The senior citizens had sought for eviction of their daughter- in-law (son’s wife). The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors reported in Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020 (SC) relied on behalf of the petitioners, The land on which, the house in question was constructed, the said land was originally purchased by the son of the applicants/senior citizens. The senior citizens had sought for eviction of their daughter- in-law (son’s wife). The son of the senior citizens had purchased the said property on which house in question exists a few months before his marriage to the appellant (against whom prayer for eviction has been sought for). The son of the senior citizens subsequently transferred the said property with same price to his father. Then, the father (father-in-law of the appellant) executed a gift deed in respect of the said property in favour of his wife (mother-in-law of the applicant). A divorce proceeding was instituted between the son of the senior citizens and his wife (appellant). The son’s wife (appellant) and her daughter are residing in the said house in question. So, taking the above factual aspects into account, the Apex Court held that, merely because, ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred from the husband of the appellant to father (father-in-law of the appellant) and then father-in-law of the appellant gifted the same to his wife i.e. to the mother-in-law of the appellant, the same will not be a ground for depriving the daughter-in-law (appellant) to reside in that house in question, as the said property, in which, the house is situated was originally the property of her husband. Therefore, the facts of the said decision, is quite different from this matter at hand. For which, this decision is not applicable to this matter at hand. Because, in this matter at hand, the property on which, the house in question is situated was purchased by the mother of the O.P. No.3 in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 and the said property and the house standing thereon exclusively belong to the senior citizen (mother of the O.P. No.3 in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023). (iii) In a case between Samtola Devi Vrs. (iii) In a case between Samtola Devi Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 INSC 404 (SC) relied on behalf of the petitioners, the Appellate Tribunal had not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of the son of the senior citizen, though it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. But, here in this matter at hand, the Appellate Tribunal has specifically assigned reason necessitating the eviction of the O.P. Nos.3 & 4 in the Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 from the house in question specifically indicating that, they are required to be evicted from the house in question immediately and live away separately, so that, complainants (senior citizens) shall be able to live with security and dignity, as they are apprehending danger to their lives by the O.Ps. For which, this decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners has become inapplicable to this matter at hand. As per the discussions and observations made above, all the above three decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not befitting to this matter at hand for the reasons assigned above. 20 . When, as per the discussions and observations made above, the judgment/order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 are not unreasonable or illegal in any manner and when the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition for making the impugned order passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 unsustainable have become inacceptable under law for the reasons assigned above, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the impugned order/judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati through this writ petition filed by the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must fail. 21 . In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati is confirmed. 22 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. 23 . The same must fail. 21 . In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. The impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati is confirmed. 22 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. 23 . Registry is directed to provide free copies of this judgment immediately to both the parties free of cost through their respective learned counsels as per Section 16(7) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.