SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Pardeep Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Additional District Magistrate Patiala & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-6622 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Kunal Muthreja, AAG, Punjab for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. K. R. Dhawan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

The Senior Citizens Act empowers senior citizens to seek eviction for their protection, even if there are ongoing civil proceedings regarding property ownership.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226/227 - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Eviction order - Senior citizen filed application for eviction against her brother, asserting ownership of the property - The court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing the authority of the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act to ensure protection of senior citizens. (Paras 2, 8, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that a senior citizen can invoke the Senior Citizens Act for eviction despite having a civil suit for declaration pending, as the Act provides specific rights for their protection. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, brother of respondent No. 2, was directed to vacate the house owned by respondent No. 2, a senior citizen, who had previously obtained a decree declaring her ownership. The petitioner had threatened her and refused to vacate despite her requests.

Findings of Court:
The court found no infirmity in the eviction order, affirming respondent No. 2's ownership and the necessity of eviction for her protection as a senior citizen.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondent No. 2 could file an application under the Senior Citizens Act despite having a civil suit for declaration and the authority of the Tribunal to order eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Senior Citizens Act empowers senior citizens to seek eviction for their protection, irrespective of ongoing civil proceedings regarding property ownership.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the house in question.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 2, who is a senior citizen and is stated to be handicapped, had filed an application dated 17.04.2018 under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with its Rules for the protection of her life and property with respect to House measuring 51 square yards situated in Bank Street, Nabha, District Patiala, Police Station Kotwali Nabha, on the plea that respondent No. 2 is the owner in possession of the house in question and a suit for declaration has been decreed vide judgment dated 08.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) declaring her to be the owner of the said property. It was averred that the present petitioner, who is the brother of respondent No. 2, had threatened the respondent No. 2 that he would kill her with a Kirpan and knife and that the present petitioner was already residing in another house belonging to the father of respondent No. 2 which measured 60 square yards and was near to the house in question. It was further averred that respondent No. 2 had several times requested the petitioner to vacate the premises but he had refused to do so. A reply (Annexure P-5) to the said application was filed, in which it was stated by the present petitioner that he had filed a Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the Courts below vide which the suit filed by respondent No. 2 was decreed and the same was pending and accordingly, the present application was not maintainable. The Additional District Magistrate, Patiala vide order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) allowed the said application of respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of the house in question. In the said order, it was observed that respondent No. 2 was the owner of the house in dispute and the said fact has been affirmed by the Civil Court, and that the petitioner had not produced any stay order, if passed in the said Regular Second Appeal so as to dispute the ownership of respondent No. 2 and after considering all the aspects, including the fact that respondent No. 2 was a senior citizen and that there were other disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the Additional District Magistrate passed the said order of eviction. It is the said order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It will be relevant to note that RSA No. 6348-2018 has also been dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure P-3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since respondent No. 2 had filed a civil suit for declaration which has been decreed and has been upheld upto this Court, it was not open to the respondent No. 2 to file an application under the Senior Citizens Act and the respondent No. 2 at best should have sought execution of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in order to take possession from the petitioner. It is further submitted that since no execution has been filed, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that by virtue of the judgment of the Civil Court, the ownership of respondent No. 2 has been established and a person, who is an owner and a senior citizen, is entitled to file an application under the Senior Citizens Act for eviction in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., reported as 2021(15) SCC 730.

                                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                  1
                                                  2
                                                  3
                                                  4
                                                  5
                                                  6
                                                  7
                                                  8
                                                  9
                                                  10
                                                  11
                                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                  supreme today icon
                                                  logo-black

                                                  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

                                                  qr

                                                  Scan Me!

                                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top