The court clarified that the authorities under the 2007 Act do not have the power to order eviction, but are limited to granting maintenance and addressing fraudulent property transfers.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ambala exercising powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as 2007, Act').

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a senior citizen, who has four sons and two daughters, all of whom are married. Respondent No.3 is one of the sons of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a residential vacant plot being House No.504 was given to the petitioner by his late father Karam Chand and the construction on the said plot was raised by the petitioner from his own resources. Petitioner alongwith his family resided in the said house.

3. The father of the petitioner also resided in the same village in his own house i.e. House No.563. After the death of the father of the petitioner in the year 2018, the petitioner alongwith one of his son Rajesh Kumar and his family shifted to the said house No.563. Being a joint family, there used to be disputes between the sons and as per the allegations of the petitioner, his sons used to insult him and his wife.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was living in a separate house in House No.563 in the same village and respondent No. 3 alongwith his wife were living in another house i.e. House No.504. Petitioner wanted to shift to the house No.504 where respondents No.3 and 4 were living on the ground that the house No.563, which initially belonged to the father of the petitioner and is being occupied by him now, is in a depleted form and needed renovation.

5. An application was filed by the petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 seeking eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from the house they were residing in. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ambala vide order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though it has been admitted that the petitioner is living separately from respondents No.3 and 4 but as he wanted the possession of the said house No.504, he has filed the present petition and being the owner of the said house and a senior citizen, he has full right to get the house vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely having another accommodation cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to the petitioner regarding eviction of respondents No.3 and 4 and Tribunal was bound to pass the order of eviction once the application has been made by the petitioner under 2007, Act.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

8. The admitted facts are that the private respondents and the petitioner are living in the separate accommodations. It is further admitted that the petitioner is a pensioner and also has agriculture land from where he is earning sufficient to lead a dignified life. In the whole of the petition, there is not even a single averment that in order to live a dignified life as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner needs assistance of his children.

9. The only prayer of the petitioner is for eviction of respondents No.3 and 4 from the premises i.e. House No.504 where they are residing on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the said premises and being senior citizen has full right for getting the respondents evicted from the said premises.

10. The question with regard to the jurisdiction of District Magistrate for exercising power under 2007, Act so as to order eviction came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1588 of 2014 titled as Major Harmohinder Singh (Retd.) versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 14.10.2014. The Division Bench after appreciating the provisions of 2