IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.05.2026 Ajit Ram ….Petitioner Versus Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Appellate Authority, Maintenance Tribunal, Khanna (Camp office at Ludhiana), and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-senior citizen assails the order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Khanna (Camp Office Ludhiana)-respondent No.1, whereby, an execution application preferred by him, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), for eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from the house in question, has been dismissed.

2. In nutshell, the petitioner-senior citizen preferred an application for vacation of the house in question from the possession of the private respondents. Accordingly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 08.02.2023, allowed the application, thereby ordering eviction of the private respondents from the house in question. Thereafter, the senior citizen, filed an application for execution of the order (supra). However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, referring to the decision dated 23.01.2020, rendered by this Court in CWP-4744-2018 (Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others), dismissed the execution application, vide order under challenge. Hence, the petitioner-senior is before this Court.

3. At the outset, learned State counsel points out that the initial order and the impugned order were rendered by an authority inherently lacking statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, is liable to be set aside, on this ground alone. He asserts that under the unequivocal scheme of the Act of 2007, an application preferred by a senior citizen seeking eviction of the private respondents, i.e. son and daughter-in-law, must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the Maintenance Tribunal, and not by Appellate Tribunal straightway. In such a situation, the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error, having been rendered coram non judice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the orders, i.e. dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-3), and 21.02.2024 (Annexure P-5), are unsustainable, as the same were passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction. Moreover, by usurping the adjudication of the application filed under the Act of 2007, the Appellate Tribunal has foreclosed the statutory right of appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007.

5. The statutory framework clearly demarcates the original and appellate jurisdictions. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(g), 7, and 16 of the Act of 2007, leaves no room for doubt that a senior citizen beseeching any relief under the Act (supra), must approach the Maintenance Tribunal, which alone is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim, in the first instance. Likewise, an appeal against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal lies exclusively before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16:-

“2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

XX XX XX j. "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 XX XX XX

7. Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal

1. The State Government shall within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for each Sub-division one or more Tribunals as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon the order for maintenance under section 5.

2. The Tribunal shall be presid