IMPORTANT POINT
.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

CM No.2944-CWP of 2018

1. Application is allowed, as prayed for.

2. Written statement on behalf of respondent no.6 is taken on record.

CWP No.3322 of 2018

3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Gurugram, by which an application filed by respondent no.6, being a senior citizen, under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to vacate House Nos.331/25 and 333/25, situated in village Hadayatpur Chhawani, Pataudi Road, Gurugram.

4. It is averred in the petition that petitioners no.1 is the owner in possession of the property bearing Municipal No.632/20 (old) (presently 332/25), measuring 250 sq. yards, falling in Khasra No.141, excluding the area of Temple which falls in between the said property and bounded as under:-

North : Property Sh. Karan Singh

East : Land of Kabristan

West : Pataudi Road, and

South: Mandir and property of Baljeet

situated in Shakti Nagar, Gurugram within the municipal limits of Gurugram, Tehsil and District Gurugram. In the said property, petitioner no.1 is residing with her husband (petitioner no.2 herein), her unmarried son (petitioner no.3 herein) and a daughter. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 had inherited the aforesaid property from her father Yaad Ram. It is further alleged that petitioner no.1 has been paying various taxes/fee etc. of the Municipal Corporation in respect of the aforesaid property. Respondent no.6 has otherwise alleged that he had purchased the property in question from Vashist Goel S/o Ram Chander and also alleged that father of petitioner no.1 had executed a lease deed in respect of the said property in his favour in his life time. Since there had been a dispute about ownership and possession over the property in question, therefore, petitioner no.1 had to file a Civil Suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain respondent no.6 from interfering in the suit property, in which status quo with regard to possession was granted by the Civil Court. The said order of status quo was vacated on 26.08.2014, which was challenged by petitioner no.1 in appeal. The appeal was allowed on 23.09.2014 and respondent no.6 was restrained from raising construction over the property in question measuring 160 sq. yards during pendency of the Civil Suit and was further directed to maintain status quo. Respondent no.6 challenged the order of the Appellate Court before this Court by way of Civil Revision No.7112 of 2014, which was dismissed on 23.02.2015. It is alleged that respondent no.6 has then filed the present application under Section 22(2) of the Act alleging that he is a senior citizen, aged 72 years, and is owner in possession of the land measuring 265 sq. yards, comprising in Khasra No.177min, situated in village Hidayatpur Chhawani, Pataudi Road, Gurugram, purchased by him vide sale deed no.9610 dated 24.02.1989. It is further alleged in the application that one part of the suit property measuring 100 sq. yards is existed on the north side of Shani Mandir and other part measuring 95 sq. yards is situated on the south side of Shani Mandir and three storey shop has been constructed, on which the petitioners are trying to make unauthorized possession. Respondent no.6, thus, prayed for protection of his house nos.331/25 and 333/25 from the petitioners.

5. The District Magistrate had allegedly got the title of respondent no.6 over the property in question verified from SDO(C), Gurugram-North who, vide his report no.172 dated 01.03.2017, reported in favour of respondent no.6. The District Magistrate thereafter decided to pass the order of eviction against the petitioners by relying upon a decision of this Court passed in the case of Balbir Kaur vs. Presiding Officer-cum-S.D.M. of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others, 201