The Act allows for eviction of occupants to protect the property of senior citizens, as established in Gurpreet Singh's case.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. -Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar and in terms of which the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises in question i.e.House No.248, Vijay Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. Petitioners herein are the grandson and grand daughter-in-law of respondent No.4-Naranjan Singh.

3. An application was moved by respondent No.4 under Section 22/23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Paretns and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of his son Surinder Kumar as also grandson Dinesh and grand daughter-in-law Sonia @ Sonia Devi wife of Dinesh, from the premises in question. Vide impugned order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) the application has been allowed and directions have been issued to vacate the premises owned by respondent No.4 within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the

4. Counsel would submit that a complaint had been lodged by petitioner No.2 against her father-in-law Surinder as also respondent No.4- Naranjan Singh, before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar on 14.05.2018 and the application that had been moved by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the 2007 Act was a mere counter-blast to the complaint that had been filed. Further argued that the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar has passed the impugned order of eviction by conducting exparte proceedings and which procedure is in violation of the rules of natural justice. Counsel further argued that respondent No.4 is a retired personnel from the Army and is drawing a handsome pension and even owns 18 acres of agricultural land and under such circumstances the application moved by him seeking eviction of the petitioners should not have been allowed. The impugned order would cause great hardships to the petitioners is yet another submission raised by counsel.

5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that the instant petition is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Counsel does not dispute that pursuant to the application having been moved by respondent No.4, seeking eviction of the petitioners, a report was sought from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jagadhri. A report was duly submitted reflecting respondent No.4-Naranjan Singh to be the owner of the land measuring 0-7 marlas situated in Village Chandpur. Construction to the extent of three rooms, two bathrooms and one kitchen was stated to have been effected on the plot in question. Furthermore the Senior Citizen/respondent No.4 is stated to be 70 years old and had categorically taken a stand that the respondents (petitioners herein) were habitual of using filthy language and even resorted to giving him beatings with a motive to grab his property. The senior citizen further alleged that his grandson and grand daughter-in-law had refused to maintain him in any manner.

7. Even though, counsel made an attempt to impress upon this Court that the petitioners were always ready and willing to look after respondent No.4 and would continue to do so in the future as well but on a pointed query being put as to how much amount were they willing to deposit as also furnish to respondent No.4 on a regular basis, the response has been evasive. To the contrary it is suggested that respondent No.4 is a man of means and as such is capable of looking after himself.

8. It is by now well-settled that if the property is owned by senior Citizen/parents, who are being harassed mentally/physically, the said senior citizen/parent may file an application before the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Act for purpose of seeking eviction. This is precisely what has been done in the present case.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2016) 1 RCR(Civ) 324 had held as