Senior citizen tribunal can order children’s eviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 12
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act may have the authority to order an eviction, if necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or a parent.
Son in unauthorised occupation
Petitioner-son has no right in the property owned by respondent-father and is, thus, in unauthorised occupation and has been rightly evicted from the premises in question by the authorities. This court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities and the same deserve to be upheld. Justice Vikas Bahl
Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, Justice Vikas Bahl made it clear that the eviction under the circumstances would be “an incidence of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection”.
The assertion came in a case where Bahadurgarh SDM-cum-Maintenance Tribunal ordered the eviction of petitioner-son and daughter-in-law vide order dated September 28, 2022. Directions were also issued to the petitioner-son and his brother to give Rs 10,000 each to respondent-parents for their maintenance. An appeal filed by the petitioner was subsequently dismissed by the Jhajjar appellate tribunal vide order dated August 5.
Justice Bahl asserted a perusal of the pleadings and the orders passed made it apparent that the respondents were old parents and senior citizens. The father was the property’s owner by virtue of a sale deed dated March 23, 2007.
Specific instances of fights breaking out in the house were also apparent. CCTV footage was available on record regarding a particular incident. A threat to the life and liberty of the respondent-parents was, as such, apparent on account of the petitioner’s presence in the house.
The judge observed: “The petitioner has no right in the property owned by respondent-father and is, thus, in unauthorised occupation and has been rightly evicted from the premises in question by the authorities. This court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities and the same deserve to be upheld.”
Before parting with the order, he asserted that it would be relevant to note that the plea regarding the maintainability of a petition seeking eviction under the Act had not been raised before the court by the petitioner. But it would be apposite to note that the Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. S Vanitha versus the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District and others” had observed that a tribunal constituted under the Act might have the authority to order an eviction, if it was “necessary and expedient”.
Justice Bahl added the SC took into consideration the legislative scheme of the Act and referred to a chapter, which provided for “protection of life and property of senior citizens”.
