IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.04.2026 Ronak Ram Bansal ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, and Ms. Aashima Jindal, Advocate, Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate, and Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. A.V.S Parmar, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

****

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 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal (respondent No.2).

2. In brief, the petitioner-senior citizen instituted an application, under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Kaithal, seeking eviction of private respondents No.3 and 4 (son and daughter-in-law), from the property/shop in question. However, upon consideration of the matter in issue, the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the application, by passing the impugned order.

3. At the outset, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, point out that the impugned order was 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 a senior citizen 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. In this regard, they refer to a notification No.1041-SW(4)-2020, dated 08.12.2020, issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Haryana. 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. Upon being confronted, learned counsel for petitioner 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 three-member Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. 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 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-9) 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.

6. 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 a