Advocates:
['PRAVEEN DHURANDHAR', '', 'N S DHURANDHAR', 'PRAHLAD SHRIVAS', 'A G']

1

WA No. 145 of 2021

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WA No. 145 of 2021

• Bhisham Lal Banchhor S/o Janak Ram Banchoor, Aged About 78

Years R/o. House No. 632, Mukta Nagar, Maharaja Chowk Durg,

Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Home

Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,

District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector / District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Late Ramkrishna Lal Shrivastava,

R/o. C/o. House No. 632, Mukta Nagar, Maharaja Chowk Durg,

Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Appellant

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate

For Respondent /State

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. AG

Proceedings through Video Conferencing

DB.: Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J

Hon'ble Mr.

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

Order on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J.

17/6/2021

1. Heard.

2. The seminal issue brought before this Court by way of the

2

WA No. 145 of 2021

present writ appeal is whether a landlord, who also happens to

be a senior citizen, can seek eviction of his tenant by resorting

to the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “the Act, 2007”).

3. The brief, undisputed facts, governing the issue, are that by

Annexure P/2, dated 11.1.2020, the appellant/petitioner

entered into a tenancy agreement with respondent No.4 letting

out two shops to him for monthly rent of Rs.7000/- for a period

of 11 months. When the tenant did not vacate the premises

after the period of the agreement i.e. after 11 months, the

appellant moved an application dated 22.1.2021 before the

District Magistrate, Durg under Section 23 of the Act, 2007

seeking eviction of the tenant and arrears of rent. When the

District Magistrate did not initiate any proceedings, a reminder

was 昀椀led on 4.2.2021 and immediately thereafter, the writ

petition was preferred before this Court. The learned Single

Judge has dismissed the petition saying that the nature of relief

claimed in the application submitted before the District

Magistrate is not cognizable under the Act, 2007.

4. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner,

Bengaluru Urban District and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC

1023, Mr. Praveen Dhuradhar, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner submits that the proceedings under the

Act, 2007 is maintainable even against third party. When a

senior citizen is harassed by a person other than his family

3

WA No. 145 of 2021

members, then also, the provisions of the Act, 2007 would apply

and the District Magistrate should have drawn the proceedings

and passed an order of eviction against respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the appellant, for the present, seeks a

direction to the District Magistrate to take up the application

and pass necessary orders.

5. Even for making a direction to a particular authority to decide

the proceedings under an Act, it is the duty of the High Court to

examine prima facie as to whether the proceedings are

maintainable or not.

6. The Act, 2007 was enacted for assisting the elderly members of

the family. The 'Introduction' to the Act, 2007 presented

before the Parliament reads thus :

“Ageing has become a major social challenge because of

decline in the joint family system. A large number of elderly

persons, particularly widowed women are not being looked

after their families. They are forced to spend their twilight

years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and are

not being provided 昀椀nancial support. To combat this social

challenge there is a need to give more attention to the care

and protection for the older persons. Though there is a

provision in