IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 07, 2025 Kamaljit Rajput and another .. Petitioners Versus District Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal, UT, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Parminder Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.1-UT Chandigarh.

Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Ms. Arundhati, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-17-CWP-2025 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

Transfer deed dated 20.04.2021 as Annexure P-9 is taken on record.

CWP-34411-2024 (O&M)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the authorities concerned under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as “2007 Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that vide order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), the Additional Deputy Commissioner- cum- Maintenance Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh has allowed the claim of respondent No.3 Krishna Devi so as to evict the petitioners and their family from the premises concerned, which order has been upheld wrongly by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) and that too without noticing the actual facts which were very material for the adjudication of the claim of respondent No.3 as raised before the authorities concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition was filed by respondent No.3 i.e. the mother of petitioner No.1 and the mother-in-law of petitioner No.2 claiming to be owner of the premises i.e. House No.224, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh by levelling certain allegations against the petitioners for not maintaining her despite being bound under the

2007 Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.3 did not disclose the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the house in question from where the eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground that respondent No.3 is the owner, was transferred by her in the name of respondent No.4 Krishna Kumar Rajput i.e. brother of petitioner No.1.

5. By the time, the Tribunal was to decide the claim raised by respondent No.3 under 2007 Act, the entitlement of respondent No.3 to the claimed relief, which was to be decided first, was ignored by the Tribunal and straightaway by treating respondent No.3 as the owner of the premises concerned and an order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) directing the eviction of the petitioners from the premises concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was also rejected on 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) without even looking into the objections raised by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority qua the order passed by the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that on the date when the Tribunal passed an order on 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.3 was not the owner of the property concerned, as on 20.04.2021, the said property had already been transferred by respondent No.3 in favour of her other son i.e. respondent No.4 hence, the claim of respondent No.3 that she is the owner of the property and was liable to be maintained by the petitioners and as they were not maintaining her, they were liable to be evicted, loses significance as the essential parameter of being owner of the property to claim the relief did not exist with respondent No.3 on the date when the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that by ignoring the said factual aspect, the appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court hence, the said order is also liable to