A senior citizen cannot claim eviction of relatives under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act without proving legal ownership of the property.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-17) by which, the application under Section 21 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘2007 Act’) filed by respondents No.2-senior citizen seeking the possession of the House No.3100 Sector 40-D, Chandigarh has been allowed by the District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh.

2. Certain facts needs to be enumerated for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of respondent No.2-senior citizen (father). Ranjit Kaur, who was initially the petitioner No.2 but was later on transposed as respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.08.2022 of this Court, is the mother of petitioner No.1 and wife of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-senior citizen (father) filed the application invoking the jurisdiction under the 2007 Act for the protection of life and liberty and the property i.e. House No.3100, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. The said claim was raised by the respondent No.2-senior citizen (father) on the ground that he is a general power of attorney holder in respect of House No.3100, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, which house is actually allotted to one Bilhar Singh son of Bojha Ram, resident of House No.2749, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh and is owned by him and keeping in view the said power of attorney, respondent No.2-senior citizen (father) is entitled for the vacation of the said premises which is in the possession of petitioner No.1 Harjit Kaur as well as Ranjit Kaur (earlier petitioner No.2)-wife of the respondent No.2-senior citizen. The respondent No.2-senior citizen namely Gulshan Beer Singh claimed eviction of his daughter (petitioner No.1) from the property in question.

4. The application filed by the respondent No.2-senior citizen came to be decided by the District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh vide order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-17) wherein, the application filed by the respondent No.2-senior citizen was allowed to the extent that the left portion of the house which is in the occupation of the petitioner No.1 should be vacated by her and the CCTV cameras which have been fixed in the house should be removed. The said order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-17) by which petitioner No.1 was directed to vacate the house, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Petitioner No.1 who appears in person, argues that the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-17) has been passed in the favour of respondent No.2-senior citizen on the application filed under Sections 21 and 22 of the 2007 Act wherein, direction has been given to petitioner No.1 to vacate the premises of the property in question whereas, the said direction so as to vacate the premises in question given by the authorities concerned vide impugned order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-7) exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act is not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. Petitioner No.1 submits that as the respondent No.2-senior citizen is not the owner of the property in question, no order could have been passed in his favour by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act so as to direct the petitioner No.1 to vacate the House No.3100, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh and therefore, direction given to pet