Senior citizens can initiate eviction proceedings against their children under the Act, but such actions must consider existing civil suits and cannot be absolute.

JUDGMENT :

Mediation offered to the parties has failed. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the private respondent and Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. Present writ petitions has been filed for the following relief :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure 5 to this instant writ petition) passed by the Additional City Magistrate (Brahmpuri), Meerut (Respondent No. 2) in Case No. 4925 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. D202111520004925) title Inderjeet Ahuja v. Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu and another, under Section 7(1) U.P. the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 22.11.2021.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the premises of the petitioners.

4. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is undisputed. The petitioner Dinesh Ahuja (herein after described as 'S2') is the younger son of respondent No. 3 Indrajeet Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as 'F'). 'F' has another son (elder) born to him, namely, Hemant Ahuja (hereinafter described as 'S1'). It is also admitted to the parties that 'F' (alongwith his sons 'S1' and 'S2' and their wives) is residing in the dwelling house described as House No. 689/56, (Old No. B-99), Jwala Nagar, Sabun Godaam, Police Station T.P. Nagar, Meerut City, District Meerut (hereinafter described as 'property'). At present 'F' and 'S1' and his wife and family enjoy good relations to the extent there is no litigation between those parties, inter se. At the same time it does appear that petitioner 'S2' and his wife have fallen apart with 'S1' and his family. The petitioners allege that 'F' is acting in collusion and/or under the undue influence of 'S1' and his family. As a result, at the instigation and prompting offered by 'S1' and his family, 'F' instituted a proceeding under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') read with Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), on 24.9.2021.

5. Further, according to the petitioners, that proceeding was instituted by 'F' only to defeat the earlier suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner/'S2' being O.S. No. 837 of 2020, (Dinesh Ahuja v. Indrajeet Ahuja and another) seeking an injunction against 'F' and 'S1'. That suit proceeding is described to be pending. At the same time, no injunction has been granted in such proceedings.

6. In the proceedings instituted under Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 21 of the Rules, the petitioners appeared and filed their objections on 8.11.2021. It is their grievance that their objections have been wrongly rejected, and erroneously, a direction has been issued to evict the petitioners from the property in question.

7. In such facts, Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily raised three submissions. First, it has been submitted that the application filed by 'F' under Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 21 of the Rules is a proxy litigation at the behest and instigation of 'S1'. 'F' has no grievance with the petitioners. Only for reason of other disputes existing between 'S1' and 'S2', 'F' has been needlessly dragged into the situation, at the behest of 'S1'.

8. Second, it has been submitted, no proceeding may have been instituted under the Act read with the Rules seeking eviction simplicitor of the petitioners. At most, 'F' would have a right to seek right to claim maintenance allowa