An application for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not maintainable without a concurrent claim for maintenance, as maintenance is the primary issue.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Misra, learned counsel for the contesting private respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Petitioners before this Court are sons of late Mukund Lal and 4th respondent, namely, Smt. Meera Devi. There is also admitted to be a daughter of late Mukund Lal and Smt. Meera Devi, namely, Sarita @ Sangeeta Gupta who resides separately at Bhadohi district alongwith her husband and in-laws.

3. The proceedings under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act, 2007') came to be instituted at the instance of the 4th respondent against the petitioners with a specific relief that three sons, namely petitioners before this Court may be evicted from House No. BP-644, situate in Mohalla - Kailashpuri (Bechupur), Pargana-Mawai, Tehsil and District - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar the erstwhile district Mughalsarai.

4. The basic plea taken as per the allegation made in the petition filed under Section 5 filed by the 4th respondent, has been that sons of opposite party were trying to somehow physically assault one servant, namely Bahadur who had been taking care of earlier husband of 4th respondent and now her care and that they use the residential property which was got constructed out of the fund, namely Stridhan of the 4th respondent. During the proceedings instituted before the competent prescribed authority under the Act, the matter was referred for mediation and conciliation before the Court and prescribed authority obtained report from Conciliation Officer, who submitted two reports on 13th July, 2021 and then on 13th August, 2021.

5. Prescribed authority proceeded to allow application under Section 5 directing for eviction of the petitioners from the house property bearing House No. 664 (supra) giving them a month's time, failing which appropriate legal proceedings were directed to be drawn for getting the order acted upon. The petitioners before this Court preferred statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which also came to be dismissed under the order passed by the appellate authority dated 16th March, 2022. Thus, these two orders are under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that looking to the provisions as contained under Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, application as such filed by the 4th respondent was not maintainable as it was beyond the scope and power of the prescribed authority to have passed any order in the absence of any pleadings raised for maintenance and harassment being meted out by not providing maintenance to senior citizens.

7. It is submitted that as a matter of fact 4th respondent was playing in the hands of her daughter and that is why during the pendency of proceedings she executed three gift deeds in respect of other properties that she had succeeded from her husband, in favour of the daughter, Smt. Sarita @ Sangeeta Gupta on 1st September, 2022. It is submitted that conduct of respondent No. 4 in gifting away a part of the property shows that she had no such problem with the sons otherwise instead of some property would have gifted away the entire property to her daughter.

8. Sri Singh, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon Section 23 to argue that such transfer of property is void during the pendency of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

9. Further argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners is that the findings returned by both the authorities namely Prescribed authority and appellate authority that it was for the harassment that necessitated the eviction of the real sons of 4th respondent are perverse because no such evidence was led by the 4th respondent before the authority c