IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.04.2025 Sh. Arun Kumar ......Appellant Vs.

Tarsem Lal Arora and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sachit Khurana, Advocate, for the appellant.

*****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is preferred against judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-497-2022 titled as ‘Tarsem Lal Arora Vs. The Additional District Magistrate and another’

2. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that female members of the family have a right to secure residence, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2025 is totally unjustified, unfair and illegal and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the whole file of the case.

4. Before proceedings further, it would be relevant to reproduce relevant portion of impugned judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-497-2022 titled as ‘Tarsem Lal Arora Vs. The Additional District Magistrate and another’:-

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI “9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

10. The question which arises for adjudication before this Court is whether the senior citizen, who owns a particular property has right to live peacefully in the said property or not in case he has any grievance or any apprehension of threat to his life or reputation.

11. The findings recorded by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner-senior citizen for eviction is on the ground that no proof of torture or maltreatment is met out to the senior citizen at the hands of respondent-son, his wife and his daughters. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have not been able to rebut a fact that the complaints which have been filed by the parties concerned against each other were before the authorities concerned at the time of adjudicating the plea of the petitioner-senior citizen under the 2007 Act. It may be noticed that the torture or maltreatment has to be understood keeping in view the allegations which have been made by the either parties against each other. Against the petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged about 84 years, the daughters of the respondent-son have made a complaint with regard to peeping from the window as and when they were alone and the police was called to help them out. Allegations at the hands of the grand-daughter against their grandfather are very serious, which reflects upon the character and reputation of the grandfather. Once the said allegations have been alleged against a senior citizen without there being any action in furtherance of the complaint so as to prove the said allegations, it cannot be said that senior citizen has not been VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI maltreated. The allegations against the reputation are good enough to be treated as maltreatment and harassment of a senior citizen, who is only praying that he should be allowed to enjoy his own property without fear or any harassment or maltreatment. The authorities concerned exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act have failed to consider the facts in the correct perspective so as to hold that there is no proof of torture or maltreatment to a senior citizen in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. Further, the daughters of the respondent-son called the police qua the said grievance, which fact has gone unrebutted during the arguments. Hence, an unsubstantiated allegation upon the character of a senior citizen has to be treated as harassment.

13. Even otherwise, as of now, the situation has further changed. The respondent-son has already vacated the premises in question and has shifted to his own house but the premises in question is still under his lock only to restrict the senior c