Senior Citizens-Eviction of Son-Parents filing application for eviction of son during pendency of civil suit by son claiming ownership-Application is maintainable.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Reply filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition is at the instance of the senior citizens-petitioners, aged 80 and 75 years respectively, challenging the order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P-23) rendered by the District Magistrate relegating them to the pending civil suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners, claiming declaration/right in the property on the first floor namely 196, 197-B, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar.

3. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a practicing lawyer at Amritsar and had been a President and Secretary of the District Bar Association. The aforementioned property by virtue of sale deeds (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are in his ownership. The son-respondent No.1 was married with respondent No.2 in the year 1993 and out of the wedlock, one son and two daughters are born. Petitioners have another two married daughters, one settled at Canada and another at Patiala.

4. He submits that owing to the circumstances explained in the writ petition, which I do not deem appropriate to mention on the premise that perhaps at a later point of time, sanity or wisdom may dawn upon the son to realize the value of the parents, no option left for the petitioners but to file the petition under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He submits that the first petition came to be disposed of on 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-20), however, the aforementioned order was set aside by this Court in CWP No.3161 of 2014 on 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-21), as by that time, in view of the powers conferred under Section 22(1) & (2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and as well as Rule 23 of the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2012, the action plan came to be promulgated describing the procedure qua eviction of the property and enforcement of orders etc. However, in the meantime i.e. on 07.01.2016/22.03.2016, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit (Annexure P-24), claiming the following relief:-

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff No.1 is owner in possession of property bearing No.B-197, First Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and B-196, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar being one of the co sharer/successor in interest as property mentioned above is purchased by the defendant No.1 from the amount which was received by them by selling the ancestral property to which plaintiff No.1 being beneficiary as co-parcener/co sharer and successor in interest of the property which was owned and possessed by his grandfather and also in other properties which belong to his grandfather, along with permanent injunction restraining the defendants themselves through their agents, privies, representatives, officials, attorney from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs and/or interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and not to disconnect the electricity supply over the property situated at first floor bearing No.B-197, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar as shown as red in the site plan attached herewith especially by defendant No.2 who is acting as agent on behalf of defendant No.1 as well as other agents and previes to do so.

And for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the electricity supply on the first floor of property No.B-197, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar in which the plaintiffs are residing.”

5. In view of the aforementioned, the District Magistrate vide order dated 04.04.2016 dismissed the petition owing to the pendency of the civil suit, leaving the parties to seek the adjudication therein.

6. The questions arise for consideration in the present writ petitions are:-

(i) Whether filing of the civil suit at the instance of the son or daughter-in-law of the senior citizens would render them remediless or not?

(ii) Whether during the pendency of the civil sui