SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 2329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
AMAR CHAND SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER - CUM - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - CUM - CHAIRMAN -Respondent
CWP No. 14752 of 2017(O&M)
Decided on : 06-09-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Muthreja, DAG, Haryana.

The jurisdiction for deciding applications for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 lies with the District Magistrate and not the Tribunal.

Headnote:

Maintenance Tribunal - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4, 5, 23 - The court discussed the scheme of the Act, the definition of Tribunal, the procedure for maintenance applications, and the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate in eviction cases.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed an application under sections 4, 5, and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of respondent No. 3 from a house. The Maintenance Tribunal granted the application, but the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate set aside the order. The main issue was whether the application for eviction should be decided by the Tribunal or the District Magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application for seeking eviction can only be decided by the District Magistrate and not by the Tribunal. It held that the application filed by the petitioners for seeking eviction of respondent No. 3 was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal vs. District Magistrate in eviction cases under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for seeking eviction can only be decided by the District Magistrate and not by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The court decided in favor of respondent No. 3 and against the petitioners, holding that the application for seeking eviction was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Ambala by which order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maintenance Tribunal, Ambala has been set aside vide which the respondent No. 3 Smt. Sonal Sharma was ordered to be evicted from the house in question.

2. In short, respondent No. 3 is married to respondent No. 2. The petitioners are the parents of respondent No. 2 who have filed an application under sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007(in short 'the Act'). The said application has been allowed by the Maintenance Tribunal against respondents No. 2 and 3 directing them to vacate the first floor of the house in question within a period of one month. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 3 has filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Ambala which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 16.05.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, respondent No. 3, appearing in person, has submitted that even the application filed before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate is not maintainable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, respondent No. 3 in person and perused the available record with their able assistance. The question arises in this case is as to whether an application for eviction is maintainable before the Tribunal or before the District Magistrate. The scheme of the Act provides the definition of Tribunal under Section 2(j) of the Act which means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 provides for the constitution of Maintenance Tribunals which has to be presided over by an officer not below the rank of the Sub Divisional Officer of the State. The Act is divided into various Chapters. Chapter II deals with the maintenance of parents and senior citizens, Chapter III deals with the establishment of old age homes, Chapter IV deals with provisions for medical care of senior citizens and Chapter V deals with protection of life and property of senior citizens. In case a senior citizen demands maintenance from his children, who are also defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, which includes son, daughter, grandson and grand daughter but does not include a minor, he may file an application under Section 4 of the Act which has to be decided as per the procedure prescribed under the Act by the Maintenance Tribunal. The procedure has to be followed in the manner as provided under Section 8 and order has to be passed in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The said order is enforced under Section 11 of the Act and if the senior citizen is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal then he may go in appeal in terms of Section 16 of the Act. So far as the protection of life and property of the senior citizen is concerned, Section 22(2) provides that "the State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens." Section 23 of the Act deals with the property which is transferred by a senior citizen with the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and in case such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the transferor may file an application before the Tribunal for the purpose of declaration of said transfer as void. In order to make Section 22(2) workable, the Haryana Government framed the rules called the Haryana Maintenance and Welfare of of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules). Rule 24 of the said Rules provides for the action plan. Action plan for the State of Haryana was notified on 26.05.2015 in which clause 2(i) deals




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top