IMPORTANT POINT
The Senior Citizen Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering eviction in a matter already pending in civil courts, rendering its order illegal.

ORDER :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling tor the records pertains to the orders of the respondent in Rc No l824/2022-A dated 30/10/2023 in ordering to hand over possession of the House Property where the petitioner is residing to the 4th respondent herein without considering the fact that the same is subject matter of Suit for declaration and Appeal arising out of the said Suit pending before this Honble Court in A S No l291 of 2017 wherein the 4th respondent is also one of the defendants and pendency of another Suit in O.S.No.14 of 2023 which is pending on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, as illegal, arbitrary excessive exercise of jurisdiction vested under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and to consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass…”

2. Brief facts of the case are the 4th respondent herein is petitioner’s mother. She filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short „the Act, 2007’) seeking eviction of the petitioner and handing over possession of the House Property where the petitioner is residing along with his family bearing Door No.16-24-32/5, ?.?.Street, Sali Peta, Tenali, besides seeking for maintenance. On receipt of Notice from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and subsequently filed counter denying the allegations made by the 4th respondent. It is stated that the relief sought for by the 4th respondent in the complaint before the 3rd respondent is under the Act, 2007. The 3rd respondent rightly held that no maintenance is awarded to the applicant/4th respondent herein as she is the sole beneficiary of Family Pension of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month. But quite surprisingly directed the petitioner to leave possession of the House within 30 days from the date of the order and should handover possession to the 4" respondent herein. The 3rd respondent further directed the Station House Officer and the concerned officials to take necessary action for implementation of the order including his dispossession. Quite surprisingly the 3rd respondent has passed order not only in favor of the 4th respondent and also in favour of one Nalla Rama Rao who is not a party to the present proceedings and who is defendant in O.S.No.14 of 2023 which was filed by the petitioner under Specific Relief Act. It is further stated that the petitioner’s mother-4 th respondent having aware of the fact that the said property was purchased by the petitioner with his own earnings, taking undue advantage of registration of the said site in her name, with a malafide intention to cause loss to the petitioner had executed Registered Gift Deed in favour of his brother Sanka Suresh in the year 2011 while the construction of 2nd floor was in process without completion of works. Further, since the petitioner has purchased the subject property with his own earnings but in the name of his mother, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.98 of 2011 against the petitioner’s mother, his brother and subsequent purchaser on the file of the XI Additional District Judge’s Court, Tenali for declaration and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on an erroneous consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal vide A.S No.1291 of 2017. But, the 3rd respondent without considering all these facts, has passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.1824/2022-A, dated 30.10.2023 and directed the petitioner to vacate the subject premises and to handover the same to the 4th respondent herein, which is nothing but exercising jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is without any authority of law. Hence, the prese