IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.03.2026 Nathu Khan ….Petitioner Versus District Magistrate-cum-Chairman Appellate Tribunal, Karnal and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-7), passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, Karnal (respondent No.1).

2. In brief, the petitioner-senior citizen (Nathu Khan) instituted an application, under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Karnal, seeking eviction of private respondents from the house in question as well as protection of his life and liberty. However, upon consideration of the matter in issue, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that assertions of the applicant were baseless, and therefore, dismissed the application, through the impugned order

3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, instead of joining issues on merits, submits that the impugned order was rendered by an authority inherently lacking statutory jurisdiction and, therefore, is liable to be set aside, on this ground alone. She asserts that under the unequivocal scheme of the Act of 2007, an application preferred by a senior citizen seeking eviction of the private respondents, who are none other than their son and daughter-in-law, must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal, and not by Appellate Tribunal straightway. In this regard, she refers to a notification No.1041-SW(4)-2020, dated 08.12.2020, issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Haryana. In such a situation, the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error, having been rendered coram non judice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Upon being confronted, learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. She fairly concedes that the application preferred by the senior citizen ought to have been adjudicated by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-7) does not pass the test of legality, as it was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction. Moreover, by usurping the adjudication of the application filed under the Act of 2007, the Appellate Tribunal has foreclosed the statutory right of appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007.

6. The statutory framework clearly demarcates the original and appellate jurisdictions. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(g), 7, and 16 of the Act of 2007, leaves no room for doubt that a senior citizen beseeching any relief under the Act (supra), must approach the Maintenance Tribunal, which alone is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim, in the first instance. Likewise, an appeal against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal lies exclusively before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16:-

“2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

XX XX XX j. "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 XX XX XX

7. Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal

1. The State Government shall within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for each Sub-division one or more Tribunals as may be specified in the notification for the purpose