KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Both these writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common verdict on account of their laying challenge to a common order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Jhajjar. The impugned order has been passed on an eviction application filed by the senior citizen, Sarjo Rathee (petitioner in CWP-2696-2022 and respondent No.2 in CWP-12838-2022), under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) against her son, Ravinder Rathee (petitioner in CWP-12838-2022 and respondent No.1 in CWP-2696- 2022). Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has directed the senior citizen to reside in two rooms with full facilities in the house in question.

2. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the senior citizen’s son is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is contended that post the drawing of the verdict dated 23.01.2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4744-2018 titled “Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab”, the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate.

3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the senior citizen’s son and fairly concedes that the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the senior citizen, though tried to address the matter on merits, fairly concedes that the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the eviction application filed by the senior citizen was not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, as such applications lie before the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The issue is no longer res integra, as it has been consistently held that applications seeking eviction orders under the Act of 2007 are required to be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate. A similar issue was considered by this Court in CWP-22501-2021, which was disposed of on 27.10.2025 with the following observations:

“5. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also examined the issue. In Gurdial Singh (supra) case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, has held that since the notification has been issued by the State of Punjab, wherethrough, the powers have been bestowed with the Maintenance Tribunal, to adjudicate the application seeking eviction. The relevant extract from the said judgment is extracted hereinafter:-

“4. A perusal of the above instructions would show that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, it has been decided by the State of Punjab that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass the eviction orders in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act as there is no bar regarding the same but the District Magistrate cannot pass the eviction orders on account of the judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in CWP-4744-2018 titled 'Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab'.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, he had filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in pursuance of the District Magistrate having delegated its powers under Section 22 to the Additional Deput