The authority of the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to pass an order of eviction for the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.

Judgment

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the letter dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2 whereby he has refused to execute the eviction orders dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-1) and dated 08.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. On 06.11.2023, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inspite of the fact that the eviction order in favour of the petitioner has attained finality, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala has dismissed the application for execution. It is further submitted that once the order has attained finality, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the order passed. It is stated that the petition for eviction at any rate is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Smt. S Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., reported as 2021 (15) SCC 730 and the said judgment has been followed by this Court in CWP-15170-2023 titled as “Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Jhajjar and others, decided on 20.07.2023. It is further stated that the petitioner is 82 years old and the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 on the face of it is illegal and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 29.11.2023.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appears & accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and seeks time to get instructions in the matter.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve respondents No.5 and 6 through process dasti as well.

To be taken up at 12.00 noon.

(VIKAS BAHL)

November 06, 2023      JUDGE”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments noticed in the abovesaid order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents No.5 and 6 has submitted that the first application for eviction was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereas, the second application for vacation of the house, on which the order dated 08.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) was passed, was filed after a period of five years from the date of the order dated 06.06.2017 and thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the second application, which culminated into the order dated 08.06.2022.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is a senior citizen and is the father of respondent No.5 and father-in-law of respondent No.6, had on 23.03.2017 filed an application with respect to vacation of the house in question, which application was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-1). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:-

“In the present case, the applicant Shri Om Prakash is the owner of the said property. The applicant not only has the legal right to get possession of his house but the applicant is also in need of his house at this time as the applicant has no source of income nor is the applicant in a position to work for his own support. Therefore, the respondent is directed to vacate the applicant’s house situated in Village Buha, Tehsil Rajpura by 05.07.2017. A copy of the order should be sent to Tehsildar, Rajpura for compliance and necessary action. The order was pronounced. File be consigned to the record room after completion as per the law.

Dated: 06.06.2017 sd/-

Place: Patiala District Magistrate,

Patiala.”

It is also not in dispute t