IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

246 Decided on : 15.09.2025 HARDEV CHANDER CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus RAJNEESH CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate and Ms. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Satyapal Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate , Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocate Mr. Sahil Garg, Advocate Ms. Garima Kuthiala P., Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Aman Bahri, Additional Standing Counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. The present letters patent appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 20.08.2024, by which, writ petition bearing CWP No. 19699 of 2024 filed by the private respondents herein, has been allowed and the orders passed by the authority concerned exercising jurisdiction under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (herein after referred to ‘2007 Act’) passed in favour of the senior citizens i.e. appellants with regard to the eviction of the respondents herein from the house owned by the senior citizens, have been set-aside and the case has been remanded back to the authorities concerned for afresh adjudication. 2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue at hand.

2.1 It may be noticed that the conceded position is that the senior citizen-appellant No. 1, namely, Hardev Chander Chaudhary was allotted the premises being House No. 2355, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh (8 marla approx), on 31.12.1975. The said house remained in his ownership till the same was transferred by him in favour of his wife Kanta Chaudhary by way of transfer deed dated 04.08.2023. The said transfer deed by appellant No. 1-Hardev Chander Chaudhary dated 04.08.2023 in favour of Kanta Chaudhary is also on record and the same is conceded fact also.

2.2 The appellants-senior citizens avail the remedy under 2007 Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question, who were occupying the first floor of the premises in question. It may be noticed that apart from the respondents as well as the appellants/senior citizens namely, Hardev Chander Chaudhary and Kanta Chaudhary, the family of the younger deceased son of the senior citizens namely, Sandeep Chaudhary, is also living in the said premises.

The petition filed by the senior citizens for eviction from the first floor of the property in question of the respondents herein namely, Rajneesh Chaudhary (respondent no. 1), his wife, Himleena (respondent No. 2), his son Vidit Chaudhary (respondent No. 3) and daughter Dyuiti Chaudhary came to be decided by the competent authority i.e. learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Maintenance Tribunal (herein after referred to ‘the Tribunal’) vide order dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) and after recording the certain reasons, the respondents were directed to vacate the said premises in question and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the senior citizens.

2.3. Against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal, the appeal dated 04.10.2023 was preferred before the District Magistrate-cum- Appellate Tribunal by the aggrieved party i.e. respondents herein, which also came to be dismissed on 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-9), which orders were impugned by the respondents by filing CWP No. 19699-2024. Though in the interregnum also, there were certain litigations, but the same are not mentioned as the same are not felt to be relevant for the purpose of the present order.

2.4. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 20.08.2024 while deciding the said writ petition, set-aside the orders passed by the authorities under 2007 Act and remanded back the case to authorities for deciding the matter afresh order on the ground that the due evidence has not been taken on record so as t