An order passed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction (coram non judice) is void. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, original jurisdiction for claims lies with the Maintenance Tribunal, and bypassing this stage forecloses the statutory right of appeal.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 01.8.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to vacate H.No. C-69, Sushant Lok-2, Sector-56, IV Floor, Gurugram.

2. In brief, respondents No. 2 and 3-senior citizens 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 District Magistrate, Gurugram seeking eviction of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (daughter-in-law and son), from the property in question. Upon consideration of the matter in issue, vide impugned order dated 01.8.2022 (Annexure P-5), the said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal.

3. At the outset, learned State counsel points 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 senior citizens seeking eviction of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, who are none other than daughter-in-law and son respectively, 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 citizens 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. There is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. On 16.12.2025, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kadian, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, since then, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, despite the matter having been listed on several occasions.

6. 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 01.8.2022 (Annexure P-5) 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.

7. 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 - x x x x x j. "Tribunal"