IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 Pawan Kumar and another ….Petitioners Versus The District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority (under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shekhar Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners, who are son and daughter-in-law of respondent No.3 (Smt. Satya Devi), have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure P-13), passed by respondent No.1, vide which, the statutory appeal preferred by them, has been dismissed, and also the order dated 19.04.2018 (Annexure P-10), rendered by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby, they were directed to vacate the house in question.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, apparently, the learned Maintenance Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2018, ex parte, thereby depriving the petitioners of adequate opportunity of hearing. He further submits that aggrieved by the order (supra), the petitioners preferred an appeal, raising various issues, which were touching the roots of the matter, but, surprisingly, none of them was considered by the learned Appellate Authority. Rather, the appeal was dismissed, only by referring to the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), vide order dated 05.09.2019. He asserts that the house in question was, in fact, owned by the grand-father of petitioner No.1, which was subsequently transferred in favour of his father, who executed a Will dated 24.03.2003 (Annexure P-1), during his lifetime. In terms the Will (supra), the house in question would be bequeathed in favour of mother of petitioner No.1, after the demise of his father, and post her lifetime, the same would be bequeathed in favour of petitioner No.1 and his brother, in equal shares.

3. He next contended that, on the basis of the Will (supra), the house in question was finally transferred on 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-3), in favour of respondent No.3, to which, petitioner No.1 also acceded to, by submitting indemnity bonds with the authorities concerned. However, immediately thereafter, on 21.01.2015, mother of petitioner No.1 transferred the property in favour of his younger brother. Thereafter, on 11.06.2015 (Annexure P-4), brother of the petitioner applied to the authorities concerned for transfer of the house in his name, which was finally given effect to on 24.08.2015. But, post transfer (supra), brother of petitioner No.1, realised that he could get petitioner No.1, along with his family, ousted from the house in question, only with the aid of the provisions of the Act of 2007, and therefore, he re-transferred the property in favour of respondent No.3 on 29.12.2015. Thereafter, mother of petitioner No.1, on 30.07.2017, moved the application under the Act of

2007.

4. To lend credence to the version of the petitioners, he has produced a copy of a judgment and decree dated 09.01.2020, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, in a civil suit preferred by petitioner No.1, wherein, it was held that he is the owner of property in question to the extent of 1/8^th share. He submits that the decree (supra), has attained finality, as till date, it has not been challenged. While concluding his arguments, it is urged that in conspectus of the sequence of events, the matter at hand is, indeed, proxy litigation, at the instance of brother of petitioner No.1, who, in a fit of greed, actually intends to oust the petitioner from the house in question.

Thus, the impugned or