IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Harjinder Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Sohrab, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), SAS Nagar-(respondent No.2), whereby, an application preferred by the senior citizen-respondent No.5, 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 allowed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, are ad idem that the impugned order has been rendered by an authority inherently lacking statutory jurisdiction, and therefore is liable to be set aside, on this ground alone. They submit that under the unequivocal Scheme of the Act of 2007, an application preferred by senior citizens seeking eviction of the private respondents, who are none other than their son and daughter-in-law, must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal, and not by Appellate Tribunal straightway.

3. Upon being confronted, learned counsel for respondent No.5, does not dispute that the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. He fairly concedes that the application preferred by the senior citizen ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order 31.01.2019 (Annexure P-6) does not pass the test of legality, as it was 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 presided over by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer of a State.

3. Where two or more Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.

16. Appeals

1. Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered,