Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Harcharan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Bhagat Singh - Respondent
CWP No. 378 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2018
Property Dispute - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Chapter II: Maintenance of parents and senior citizens, Chapter IV: Medical care of senior citizens, Chapter V: Protection of life and property of senior citizens - The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, which deals with the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The court also referred to the relevant chapters of the Act, which provide for the maintenance, medical care, and protection of senior citizens. The court highlighted the definition of 'property' in the Act and the comprehensive action plan for protection of life and property of senior citizens. The court also discussed the powers and duties of the District Magistrate as specified in the Rules. The court emphasized that the Act and the Rules empower the District Magistrate to protect the property of senior citizens and to evict unauthorized occupants. The court cited the relevant sections and rules to support its decision.}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order by the District Magistrate, Patiala, which ordered the petitioner to vacate the house owned by respondent No. 1. The petitioner claimed a right to demand his share in the property as the only son of respondent No. 1. The District Magistrate allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to vacate the house. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that he has no other source of income and has two minor children. The court found that the petitioner, as a licensee, has no vested right to remain in possession of the property and that the District Magistrate has the power to protect the property of senior citizens. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order to vacate the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which deals with the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The court also referred to the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2012, which provide for the duties and powers of the District Magistrate in protecting the life and property of senior citizens. The court found that the Act and the Rules empower the District Magistrate to put senior citizens into possession of their property and to restrain or eject those who interfere with their possession. The court also cited a previous case where directions were issued to vacate a house occupied by a son of a senior citizen. Based on these findings, the court upheld the order to vacate the house.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Magistrate has the power to protect the property of senior citizens and to evict unauthorized occupants. The court found that the petitioner, as a licensee, has no right to resist eviction based on being the only son or having no source of income. The court emphasized that the protection of property of senior citizens includes all rights and obligations in respect of the property. The court also cited the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as well as a previous case, to support its decision.
Result: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order to vacate the house.
JUDGMENT
Daya Chaudhary, J. - The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to vacate the house of respondent No. 1 within a period of two months.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition, are that respondent No. 1-Bhagat Singh, who is father of the present petitioner, filed an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 for vacation of his house and also for protection of his life and property as well as his wife. It was mentioned in the application that he is having two children i.e one son and one daughter and both are married. Respondent no. 1 is stated to be 65 years of age and is a senior citizen. It has also been mentioned that the son as well as his wife reside in his house and he is not being allowed to use the house. Respondent no. 1 and his wife are leading hard and insecure life. Other allegations were also mentioned in the application. Said application was allowed by District Magistrate, Patiala vide order dated 29.11.2017, wherein, it has been held that the petitioner herein in the present petition is in illegal possession of the house and a direction has been issued to vacate the house within a period of two months and to hand over the possession to respondent No. 1, namely, Bhagat Singh.
3. Said order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala has been challenged before this Court by filing the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to demand his share in the property, in dispute being the only son of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was earlier working in the grocery shop of his father and is having share in that property also but neither he is being allowed to work nor he is being given share in the residential house. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no other source of income and it is difficult for him to take care of his two minor children and in case, he is ousted from the house, he would not be in a position to have a house on rent. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala is liable to be set aside.
5. Facts relating to filing of application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 by respondent No. 1 and thereafter, the direction issued by the District Magistrate, Patiala for vacation of house and handing over possession thereof within a period of two months are not disputed.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner, his family as well as respondent No. 1 are residing in the same house and the application was filed by respondent No. 1 stating therein that is being harassed by his son and he is not being allowed to use his residential house. The District Magistrate, Patiala allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the residential house, in dispute. Said order has been challenged only on the ground that the petitioner has no other source of income and is having two minor children. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner has a right over the property of his father, being the only son.
7. The "Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. Chapter II of the Act deals with the maintenance of parents and senior citizens; Chapter III of the Act deals with establishment of old age homes' Chapter IV deals with the provisions for medical care of senior citizen.
8. Section 2 contains the definitions and clause (f) defines 'property' as under :-
Definitions :- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
