The Rules of 2012 provided a comprehensive mechanism for the Act of 2007, and the District Magistrate cannot summarily evict a person in settled possession of a property.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

The appellant, a senior citizen, has filed the present intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 24392 of 2013) filed by the appellant seeking direction to the State of Punjab (respondents No.1 and 2) to implement the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2007') by creating authorities under Section 22 of the Act of 2007 for protection of life and property of the senior citizens, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in law while not issuing the aforesaid direction, as the similar direction was issued by this Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh, in Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2014(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 656 : LPA No. 1007 of 2013 decided on 26.09.2013), directing the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh, to take steps to bring into force proper rules under Section 32 (1) of the Act of 2007 for the purposes mentioned under sub section (2) of Section 32 more specifically clauses (e) and (f) so as to protect the life and property of senior citizens as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act of 2007. A comprehensive action plan including enforcement of mechanism and conferring relevant powers to the District Magistrate or officers subordinate to him as envisaged under sub section (1) of Section 22 of the Act of 2007 was also ordered to be enforced.

3. In the instant case, while noticing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the State of Punjab has already framed the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, notified on 17.10.2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2012'), the learned Single Judge has declined to issue any further direction, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, which is an undisputed position, that the appellant wants eviction of his divorced wife (respondent No.4) and sons (respondents No.5 and 6), residing in the house owned by him. In this regard, a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking eviction of his divorced wife and sons is already pending in the court of Civil Judge at Mohali. In the said suit, the divorced wife and sons of the appellant have also filed counter claim, claiming their legitimate right to reside in the house. It has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the whole object of the appellant is to eject his divorced wife and sons from the house and for that purpose, he wants that the District Magistrate be empowered and a mechanism be created to evict them by following the summary procedure. But since the aforesaid civil suit filed by the appellant is pending, the civil court will decide the respective rights of both the parties in the said suit. Without expressing any thing on merits, as a reminder, while referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and another, AIR 2005 SC 986, the learned Single Judge has observed that a wife includes divorced wife. It has been further observed that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Burmann v. Mutul Chatterjee, AIR 2009 SC 651, a divorced wife is to be protected against her husband by providing for maintenance including a right to residence. While noticing all these facts, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Single Judge has declined to issue the direction sought by the appellant. With regard to the decision of this Court in Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan's case (supra), the learned Single Judge has made the following observations :

"It must again be remembered that direction given by the Division Bench in Justice Shanti Sarup's case to b