IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 17, 2026 JEET SINGH -PETITIONER V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant writ petition assails the order dated 15.07.2025, whereby the petitioner’s application, as filed under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), seeking eviction of the respondents No.3 and 4 from the house in question, has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is contended that post the drawing of the verdict dated 23.01.2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4744-2018 titled “Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab”, the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub- Divisional Magistrate before whom it was filed, and not by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner.

3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly concedes that the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4, though tried to address the matter on merits, fairly concedes that the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the application (Annexure P-2) reveals that it is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, as such applications lie before the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The issue is no longer res integra, as it has been consistently held that applications seeking eviction orders under the Act of 2007 are required to be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner. A similar issue was considered by this Court in CWP-22501-2021, which was disposed of on 27.10.2025 with the following observations:

“5. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also examined the issue. In Gurdial Singh (supra) case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, has held that since the notification has been issued by the State of Punjab, wherethrough, the powers have been bestowed with the Maintenance Tribunal, to adjudicate the application seeking eviction. The relevant extract from the said judgment is extracted hereinafter:-

“4. A perusal of the above instructions would show that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, it has been decided by the State of Punjab that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass the eviction orders in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act as there is no bar regarding the same but the District Magistrate cannot pass the eviction orders on account of the judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in CWP-4744-2018 titled 'Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab'.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, he had filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in pursuance of the District Magistrate having delegated its powers under Section 22 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patial