IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 05.02.2025 GARIMA JAIN ...... Petitioner VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SONIPAT AND ORS ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ***

Present :- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondents No.3.

Mr. Gurpreet Jayia, Advocate for respondent No.4.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that on the application filed by to respondent No.3-senior citizen under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as '2007 Act') vide impugned order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-10), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered maintenance of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner and her husband by 5^th of every month and after expiry of the period of appeal, respondent No.3 was allowed to enter in the disputed House No.99, T.P. Scheme Section 15, Sonipat. The petitioner filed an appeal alongwith stay application against the impugned order dated

24.07.2024 and vide order dated 17.09.2024 the stay application has been rejected. Hence, the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in an application filed under Section 23 of 2007 Act, the respondent No.3-senior citizen claimed the house to be hers and prayed for the cancellation of the said sale deed on the ground that the house in question was purchased by the senior citizen out of her own funds but in the name of her son and the daughter-in- law hence, she has a right to claim the property as her own so as to reside in the said property. In order passed by the Tribunal on the application of the senior citizen, a direction has been given that though, the property being claimed as the ownership of the senior citizen cannot be accepted as the same is in the favour of the son and the daughter-in-law but, the senior citizen will be paid financial maintenance and she will live in the said house. The said order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.07.2024 is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that once, the property in question does not belong to the respondent No.3-senior citizen, claiming the entrance into the said property which belongs to the petitioner, as granted by the authorities while exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act, is contrary to the provisions of the 2007 Act and the said order dated

24.07.2024 is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the senior citizen is fully sufficient to reside wherever she wants keeping in view the fact that she is getting pension of more than Rs.50,000/- but the only purpose of entering the house in question is to create problem for the petitioner as there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband and the proceedings initiated under 2007 Act is only to dislodge the petitioner/daughter-in-law from the house which is in the ownership of the daughter-in-law alongwith respondent No.4-son of the senior citizen.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said facts have been totally ignored by the authorities concerned while passing the orders which have been impugned in the present petition and therefore, the orders may kindly be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of senior citizen does not dispute the fact that as of now, the house in question where the right of entrance has been given to the senior citizen vide the impugned orders, is in the joint ownership of the petitioner daughter-in-law as well as the son of the senior citizen.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-senior citizen further submits that the senior citizen is claiming the ownership of the said property on the ground that she has purchased the house in question out of her own funds for which, a civil suit has already been filed so as to claim the declaration that senio