IMPORTANT POINTS
On receipt of such application for maintenance, a notice is to be given to the children or relative and an enquiry is to be held for determining the amount of maintenance, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.
The word ‘transfer’ used in Section 23 would not only mean to include actual transfer rather it would be given a liberal consideration so as to include the “transfer of possession” to son or relative.

JUDGMENT

Sunita Agarwal, J.—The present petition has been filed by Shri Om Prakash Manchanda aged about 93 years son of Late Fakir Chand Manchanda, Resident of B-22, 117/124A Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar seeking quashing of the order dated 21.6.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar on the application of the petitioner as also the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in an appeal filed by the petitioner. Further prayer in the petition is to issue a direction commanding the said respondents to compel the respondent no.3 to refund a sum of Rs.46,54,465/- along with interest to the petitioner and also to handover the possession of the third floor of House No.117/124A, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar to the petitioner forthwith.

2. The petitioner herein is a man aged about 93 years, father of three sons namely Naresh Manchanda, Mahesh Manchanda and Raj Manchanda and filed the present petition supported with the affidavit of Raj Manchanda (one of his sons) with the grievances that his one son namely Mahesh Manchanda (respondent no.3 herein) is not refunding Rs.46 lakhs and odd, which was given to him as loan by the petitioner for the soap business being run in the name of Sheetal Gramodyog Sansthan. On the said loan amount, interest was payable to the petitioner which was being credited in his account upto the year 2013. The Sheetal Gramodyog Sansthan is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered with the U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board Ayog. It has been engaged in the business of manufacturing soap to derive income for social and charitable purposes i.e. to help the downtrodden of the Society. The soap factory is being run at Village Bhelamau, Bhaunti, Kanpur Nagar. The accounts of Sheetal Gramodyog Sansthan is presently being managed by respondent no.3 as its Secretary. The respondent no.3 had stopped crediting interest in the account of the petitioner and started harassing him, as such the notice dated 23.2.2015 was sent to respondent no.3 asking him to vacate the premises in question. The respondent no.3 is living at the third floor of House No.117/124A, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar which has been constructed on the Plot No.B-22 Block-C, Scheme-I, Kakadev, Kanpur Nagar, which was jointly purchased by the petitioner with his two brothers and his eldest son Naresh Manchanda. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had permitted his son namely respondent no.3 to live at one floor of the house in question but on account of harassment at his (his son) hands, he (the petitioner) now requires vacant peaceful possession of the third floor of the house which is his (the petitioner) exclusive ownership. The application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘the Senior Citizens Act, 2007’) was filed by the petitioner with the relief of refund of the aforesaid money and to obtain vacant possession of his house. The said application was illegally rejected vide order dated 21.6.2016 with the observation that the relief sought therein are not maintainable being beyond the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

3. This order was further challenged in appeal filed under Section 17 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which has been rejected by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar. The Authorities under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 found that a serious dispute is going on between the family members and, as such, they may seek appropriate relief before the Court concerned.

4. Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the Statutory Authorities have committed a grave error of law in rejecting the application and appeal on the ground that the eviction of respondent no.3 from the house in question could not be ordered as the applicant did not claim any maintenance from the respondent