The court affirmed the authority of the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act to order eviction for the protection of senior citizens, rejecting claims of joint ownership and family settlement.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the petitioners had been ordered to vacate House No.1639, Near Sector-32, Prem Puri (VPO Jharsa Road), Gurugram. Challenge is also made to the order dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the appeal against the order dated 04.08.2021 (P-4) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3, who is 72 years old father of petitioner No.1, had filed an application (Annexure P- 1) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2007") for directing the petitioners to hand over the physical possession of the house in question. In the said application, it was stated by respondent No.3 that he is a senior citizen and is also an Indian Air Force Veteran. In paragraph 3 of the said application, it was specifically stated that he is the owner of the property in question. It was further averred that the petitioners have made the life of respondent No.3 unbearable/miserable as they do not give respect to him and use foul language and say filthy words and have even tried to hit respondent No.3 on various occasions by different objects. It was further averred that the petitioners have given oral warnings to respondent No.3 to throw him out from his own house. In paragraph 8 of the said application, it was stated by respondent No.3 that he had ousted petitioner No.1 from his property through advertisement in a national newspaper i.e. Dainik Jagran on 24.09.2019 and a copy of the said advertisement was annexed along with the said application. In paragraph 9, it was stated that petitioner No.1 is a car mechanic/technician and is using the residential premises for commercial purposes, thus, creating disturbance in peaceful living of respondent No.3 and other family members. In paragraph 10 of the application, a reference was made to a complaint given by respondent No.3 to the police against the petitioners and a copy of the said complaint was annexed as Annexure A-2. It was stated in paragraph 14 that all the efforts of conciliation at the family level have failed due to adamant attitude of the petitioners. A joint reply (Annexure P-2) was filed by the petitioners to the said application and in the said reply the fact that respondent No.3 is a senior citizen and also is the owner of the property was not disputed as the contents of paras No.1 and 3 of the application were stated to be matter of record. The filing of the complaint by the father to the police was not disputed and it was averred in paragraph 10 of the said reply that the complaint was based on false and frivolous grounds.

3. The District Magistrate, Gurugram vide order dated 04.08.2021 allowed the said application of respondent No.3 and directed the petitioners to vacate the house in question. A perusal of the said order would show that in paragraph No.2, it was observed that the matter was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Badshahpur for verification of title and as per the said verification, respondent No.3 was found to be the owner in possession of the property in question, vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.1973. In paragraph 6, it was specifically mentioned that the matter had been sent for mediation and both the parties were directed to appear before the ADR Centre, Courts Complex, Gurugram on 12.01.2021, but the ADR Centre had sent a report with the remarks that the mediation between the parties had remained unsuccessful and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed a petition bearing CWP-18313-2021 before this Court, which on the objection of respondent No.2 and the State to the effect that there was an alternative remedy available to the petition