IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :11.02.2025 Jodha Singh ...Petitioner Versus Additional District Magistrate, S.A.S. Nagar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Gursher Sigh Bhandal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Malik, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, S.A.S Nagar by which, the application filed by the petitioner-senior citizen under Sections 21 & 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 ( in short, ‘2007 Act’) for directing the respondent No.2-son and respondent No.3-daughter-in-law to vacate the premises in question, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen submits that the petitioner-senior citizen is a retired Army personnel and as he has threat to his life at the hands of respondents No.2 and 3, he had moved an application under Sections 21 & 22 of the 2007 Act for directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to vacate the premises in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen further submits that the said application has wrongly been dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising power under 2007 Act hence, the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be set aside and the application of the petitioner-senior citizen should be accepted so as to give appropriate direction to the respondents No.2 & 3 to vacate the premises in question.

4. Upon notice of motion, respondent No.2 & 3 appeared.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 submits that as per the order passed, the present petition is confined only qua the claim against respondent No.2-son and the claim raised against respondent No.3, who is a daughter-in-law of the petitioner-senior citizen was waived of hence, once the respondent No.3-daughter-in-law can live in the premises in question concerned, it cannot be said that her husband i.e. respondent No.2 has to vacate the premises so as to dislodge the family on the asking of the petitioner-senior citizen.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 further submits that the property in question is having four floors and in the half of the ground floor, respondent No.2 along with his wife and two sons are living and the other half of the property on ground floor is in the possession of the petitioner-senior citizen, who is also having the possession of the 1^st floor along with his other son whereas, the 2^nd and 3^rd floors have been given on rent. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 further submits that apart from the rent being fetch by the petitioner-senior citizen, he is also getting handsome pension hence, the question of maintaining him does not arise.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 & 3 submits that qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen that the life and liberty of the petitioner-senior citizen is at stake, no such incident has ever been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned to the effect that the said averments can be believed to be true. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 submits that a legal and valid order has been passed by the authorities concerned hence, the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed on the application of the petitioner-senior citizen may kindly be upheld.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. The senior citizens have been given a right to get the accommodation vacated in case, there is a threat to the life and liberty of the senior citizen. Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen was asked to point out any material evidence before the authorities concerned to show that at any given point of time the life and liberty of the petitioner-senior citize