Reserved on : 17.10.2025 Pronounced on :25.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.104795 OF 2025 (GM – RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO (AS LATE SRINIVASRAO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER)

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.2, WARD NO.23 NEAR SARVODAYA SCHOOL, SIDDARTHNAGAR, BALLARI – 583 104.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, 1 . SMT. RATNAKUMARI Dharwad Bench, Dharwad W/O. S. BABURAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.2, WARD NO.23, NEAR SARVODAYA SCHOOL, SIDDARTHNAGAR, BALLARI – 583 104.

2 . SMT. ARUNA W/O. NAGESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.2, WARD NO.23, NEAR SARVODAYA SCHOOL, SIDDARTHNAGAR, BALLARI – 583 104.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL BALLARI – 583 104.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R3;

SMT.GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KAM.SENIORCITIZEN:06:2024-2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.06.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Authority for Senior Citizens Tribunal, Ballari, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby, the Assistant Commissioner directs the petitioner to vacate the house, which is in possession of the petitioner and her children and hand it over the same to the first respondent - senior citizen.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner and the second respondent are both daughters in-law of the first respondent. The son of the first respondent – husband of the petitioner dies and the petitioner and her children and the first respondent are said to be residing at house No.2, Ward No.23, Siddarthnagar, Ballari. After the death of the son of the first respondent, the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent was not cordial and therefore, the first respondent is said have filed an application under the provisions of the Act, before the Assistant Commissioner seeking eviction of the petitioner and her children from the aforesaid house and also sought cancellation of another gift deed executed in favour of the second respondent in respect of a different house. The application before the Assistant Commissioner was submitted on 15.04.2025 and a report was sought from the competent authority. In terms of the report, the impugned order comes to be passed directing vacation of the premises, which is in the possession of the petitioner and her children, within 30 days from the date of the impugned order and directed to hand over the vacant possession to the first respondent. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Srinivas Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Gayathri S.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would project that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to pass an eviction order while entertaining a petition filed by a senior citizen under Section 23 of the Act. He would submit that the order impugned be set aside and the petitioner and her children be permitted to continue to stay in the said premises.

5. Per contra, Smt. Gayathri S