Proceeding Involving Eviction Simplicitor Maintainable Under Senior Citizens Act: Allahabad HC Dismisses Son’s Plea Against Father

The High Court also observed that summary proceedings for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act may remain subject to the outcome of any civil suit wherein larger issues and other rights may be involved.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh highlighted, “Whatever be the true reasons that may exist in particular families, the Act and the Rules offer a life preserving protective umbrella to all the aged members of the society, who may feel victimized or helpless at the hands of their children, or their relatives and others, both with respect to provision for maintenance allowance and with respect to protection of their properties. Once that protection has been granted, there is no reason to restrict its operation.”

Advocate Nitin Sharma represented the Petitioners while CSC Abhitab Kumar Tiwari represented the Respondents.

The petitioner Dinesh Ahuja (S2) is the younger son of respondent no.3 Indrajeet Ahuja (F). ‘F’ has another son (elder) born to him, namely, Hemant Ahuja (S1). ‘F’ (along-with his sons ‘S1’ and ‘S2’ and their wives) is residing in the dwelling house. The petitioners alleged that ‘F’ is acting in collusion and/or under the undue influence of ‘S1’ and his family. As a result, at the instigation and prompting offered by ‘S1’ and his family, ‘F’ instituted a proceeding under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. It was the grievance of the petitioners that their objections have been wrongly rejected, and erroneously, a direction has been issued to evict the petitioners from the property in question.

One of the arguments raised by the Petitioner was that the proceedings instituted against them were proxy proceedings. On a perusal of the material and evidence on record, the Bench didn't find any evidence or material to reach an exceptional finding that the proceedings instituted by ‘F’ are proxy proceedings instituted by him for the benefit of ‘S1’. “Merely because ‘S1’ may either be neutral to the dispute between ‘F’ and ‘S2’ and / or merely because ‘S1’ may be supporting ‘F’ in his dispute with ‘S2’, it may not lead to the conclusion as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner”, it said.

Another submission made by the Counsel for the Petitioner was that no proceeding may have been instituted under the Act read with the Rules seeking eviction simplicitor of the petitioners. At most, ‘F’ would have a right to seek the right to claim maintenance allowance from his sons who may inherit his property. Only in the event of default in payment of maintenance allowance if any is awarded, a proceeding for eviction may follow.

On this aspect, the Bench held that there being proceedings referable to Chapter V of the Act, the precondition of claim / or maintenance allowance does not exist. The application filed by ‘F’ before the District Magistrate was wholly maintainable.

One of the submissions raised by the Petitioner was that the proceedings under the Act and the Rules are summary in nature. In face of civil suit seeking injunction instituted by the petitioner No.1/’S2’ prior to the institution of application under the Act and in face of such suit proceedings being pending, specifically with respect to the property in dispute, no jurisdiction survived with the authorities constituted under the Act framed thereunder to proceed to pass any order to evict the petitioners during pendency of the suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.).

The Bench further explained, “While the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts may survive summary proceedings for eviction under Chapter V of the Act read with the Rules framed thereunder, read with the CAP, that summary proceeding may remain subject to the out come of any civil suit wherein larger issues and other rights may be involved. It was further clarified that summary eviction under the Act would remain subject to final outcome of the suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut.”

“Unfortunate as it may be, it is a hard reality of life that upon breaking down of joint families and perhaps as a direct result of smaller units of family, the aged are feeling isolated and at times abused”, it said while further adding, “Any margin of restriction created by courts may be wholly counter productive to fulfillment of the legislative and societal needs as those standing under the umbrella of protection offered by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are in their sunset years and do not have decades of time or abundance of energy and resources or the motivation or the conviction to contest legal proceeding-that too often with those who came into the world through them.”

Thus, finding no merit in the submission of the Petitioners, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu And Another v. District Magistrate And 2 Others (Neutral Citation- 2024:AHC:182781-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Nitin Sharma

Respondents: CSC Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, Advocates Vinay Khare,Vivek Saran

Click here to read/download Order