The Assistant Commissioner has the authority to issue eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially to ensure the protection and maintenance of senior citizens.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

order under maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act." data-page="3" data-para-type="facts" id="1">The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.06.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Authority for Senior Citizens Tribunal, Ballari, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby, the Assistant Commissioner directs the petitioner to vacate the house, which is in possession of the petitioner and her children and hand it over the same to the first respondent - senior citizen.

order under maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act." data-para-type="facts" id="2">2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner and the second respondent are both daughters in-law of the first respondent. The son of the first respondent – husband of the petitioner dies and the petitioner and her children and the first respondent are said to be residing at house No.2, Ward No.23, Siddarthnagar, Ballari. After the death of the son of the first respondent, the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent was not cordial and therefore, the first respondent is said have filed an application under the provisions of the Act, before the Assistant Commissioner seeking eviction of the petitioner and her children from the aforesaid house and also sought cancellation of another gift deed executed in favour of the second respondent in respect of a different house. The application before the Assistant Commissioner was submitted on 15.04.2025 and a report was sought from the competent authority. In terms of the report, the impugned order comes to be passed directing vacation of the premises, which is in the possession of the petitioner and her children, within 30 days from the date of the impugned order and directed to hand over the vacant possession to the first respondent. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Srinivas Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Gayathri S.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would project that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to pass an eviction order while entertaining a petition filed by a senior citizen under Section 23 of the Act. He would submit that the order impugned be set aside and the petitioner and her children be permitted to continue to stay in the said premises.

5. Per contra, Smt. Gayathri S.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the husband of the petitioner and son of the first respondent died 8 years ago; after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and her children were residing in Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel has produced memo along with certain documents to buttress her submissions that the present petitioner is not staying anywhere in the aforesaid premises. She would contend that after the death of the petitioner’s husband, the relationship between the first respondent and petitioner turned irretrievably sour and therefore, the first respondent approached the legal cell, who in turn submitted an petition before the Assistant Commissioner by registering a complaint. The learned counsel would submit that the Assistant Commissioner in certain circumstances is conferred with the power to pass eviction orders under the Act. She would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate would defend the action of the Assistant Commissioner and seek dismissal of the petition, toeing the lines of the learned counsel