The Act, 2007 does not override other protections in law, and the authority under the Act cannot decide disputes that fall under the jurisdiction of other statutes or civil courts.

ORDER : – Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16-12-2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the said authority rejected his application preferred under section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short the ‘Act, 2007’) holding that the dispute as has been raised by the petitioner in the application is of civil nature and as such, it cannot be decided under the provisions of the Act, 2007.

3. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, certain important facts are required to be mentioned which are as under : –

(3.1) As per the petitioner, he owned a land of Khasra No. 313/5Xk area measuring 0.046 hectare, Patwari Halka No. 13/2 situated at Tahsil and District Balaghat over which, a house is constructed and entry in this regard has also been made in the revenue records. (3.2) As per the petitioner, the said house was given to him by his maternal uncle namely late Hanuman Singh Rana by executing a ‘Will’ in his favour and thereafter, he started residing in that house. According to him, to acquire the said house in pursuance to the ‘Will’ executed in his favour, all proceedings of revenue and even depositing the tax of the house in the Municipality, Balaghat, were carried out by him. (3.3) As per the petitioner, his elder brother namely Ashok Singh Sarswar who was residing at Nagpur, contested the assembly election from Balaghat in the year 1998 and during that period, he used some portion of the said house as his office. (3.4) According to the petitioner, after the death of his wife in the year 2016, his elder brother came to Balaghat and since there was nobody to look after him, therefore, taking into account the petitioner’s old age, he advised him to keep respondent No. 3 with him for getting his assistance. The petitioner has only one daughter who got married, therefore, he gave his consent to keep respondent No. 3 with him, who, after spending some time, started terrorising the petitioner for transferring the said house in his name. Subsequently, the elder brother of the petitioner called him at Nagpur in the month of November, 2019 and retained him there unnecessarily for 20 days and during that period, respondent No. 3 not only changed the doors and locks of the house, but also changed the name plate of the petitioner and finally occupied the house unauthorizedly. After coming to know about the said fact, the petitioner along with his daughter and son-in-law came to Balaghat on 6-12-2019 and tried to enter into the said house, where he found his elder brother who along with respondent No. 3 restrained them to enter into the house. Thereafter, some altercation took place between them in which, respondent No. 3 not only abused them, but also threatened them to take shelter of Civil Court. Thereafter, a report in this regard was lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali on 6-12-2019. (3.5) Left with no option, the petitioner started residing at his village i.e. Nakshi and thereafter, he moved an application under section 22(2) of the Act, 2007 before respondent No. 2 for invoking jurisdiction provided under the provisions of the Act, 2007 so as to evict respondent No. 3 from the house in question. (3.6) The said application was replied by respondent No. 3 wherein he had not only denied the facts mentioned in the application, but also denied the title of the petitioner over the said house. In the reply, respondent No. 3 had also disclosed the fact that the petitioner never resided in the disputed house, whereas he is a permanent resident of Nagpur from where he is controlling his business and in support whereof, filed various documents. In the reply, it was also disclosed that father of respondent No. 3 namely Ashok Singh Saraswar in the li