The right of the senior citizen under the Act is primarily for maintenance, and the eviction right is a derivative. The possession of the house is deemed to be with all legal heirs, except the wife, and any disputes must be raised in the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) -

CM-1328-CWP-2020

1. This is an application for placing on record the written statement along with copies of Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/15 on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Written statement along with Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/15 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are taken on record.

CM-8085-CWP-2020

3. This is an application for placing on record the replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with its Annexures P-33 to P-36.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with its Annexures P-33 to P-36 are taken on record.

Main Case

5. This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure P-24) and further for quashing of order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-28) as passed by respondent No.2, with certain other prayers made in the present petition.

6. The facts, as have been mentioned in the present petition, are that the petitioner-Senior Citizen, who is now deceased, asserted that he was owner of House No.13, measuring 180 Sq.yards situated in the area of Golden City Enclave, Sector-4, Mundi Kharar, Mohali. The petitioner had permitted the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to occupy a portion of the house in question. However, since respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not maintain the petitioner properly, rather, had started harassing him by initiating frivolous litigation and through all other possible means, therefore, for protecting his life and property, he did not want them to reside with him. Accordingly, the petition was filed by the petitioner claiming that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 be evicted from the house in question. That petition was allowed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 07.12.2017. However, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 asserted that although the petition preferred by the senior citizen was only qua eviction from the ground floor, yet, the order of eviction was passed qua eviction from the entire house. Therefore, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had moved an application for correction of the order. Accordingly, the correction of the order was done by the Tribunal, vide order dated 01.02.2018. Thereafter, the said eviction order was executed by the authorities on 03.05.2018. After the order had been executed, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed writ petition bearing CWP No.13984 of 2018 challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal, as well as, claiming therein that the respondents be directed to put the petitioners in possession of the second floor of the house in question. However, that writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 01.11.2018 and the orders passed by the Tribunal were upheld. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Bench, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had preferred LPA No.1905 of 2018. However, that LPA was dismissed as withdrawn. But while permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to withdraw the said LPA, they were granted liberty to approach the authorities for any un-redressed grievance. Taking a cue from the said order, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed the application before the Tribunal that the possession of the second floor of the house be restored to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 because the same was wrongly taken away from them during the process of execution; despite the order of the Tribunal having been clarified to the extent that the eviction was to be done only from the ground floor of the house in question. That application filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 has been allowed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that since the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were having the material to show regarding payment of electricity bill and property tax etc., therefore, they have proved that they were in possession a