21 March 2022 3:59 PM GMT
In a significant assertion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the rules framed by the state government thereunder, it is mandatory for the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.The Bench of Justice...
In a significant assertion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the rules framed by the state government thereunder, it is mandatory for the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia further observed that the Senior Citizen Act recognizes the vulnerable position of such citizens in the society and it intends to provide a mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are secured and they are able to live in security and dignity.
The case in brief
Essentially, the Court was hearing a plea moved by a Husband-Wife/petitioners challenging the eviction order passed under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 by the Additional District Magistrate on an application moved by the mother/respondent no. 2 of the husband/petitioner.
This eviction order against the petitioners was passed on the ground that within two years, the respondent no.2/mother of the husband shall raise construction over the vacant plot and give the same to the petitioners.
However, it was the contention of the petitioners that the Additional District Magistrate who passed the order had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizen Act that too in the summary proceedings.
On the other hand, respondent no.2/mother submitted through her counter-affidavit that since her son and daughter-in-law (petitioners) used to harass her, therefore, she had moved the application before the ADM with a view to taking steps to avoid harassment to her as well as to her family members.
Taking into account the objectives of the Senior Citizen Act, the Court, at the outset, observed that the act provides for maintenance and welfare of the parents and the senior citizen which is directly recognized and guaranteed under the Constitution of India and all matters incidental thereto.
Further, taking into account section 21 of the said Act, the Court noted that it provides for the measures to be taken by the State Government to ensure the well-being of the senior citizen.
Against this backdrop, the Court discarded the argument posed by the petitioners that the Additional District Magistrate couldn't have passed the order of eviction under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizen Act in the summary proceedings.
Essentially, the Court stressed that it is true that such an order can't be passed in summary proceedings, however, this principle was applicable to that situation wherein steps are being taken for eviction of the in-laws from the property and the said property belongs to the in-laws.
However, the Court noted, in the instant case, the situation was different as the petitioners were staying along with respondent no.2 and the steps were taken under Section 4/5 to protect and secure the life and the property of the senior citizen, i.e., respondent no. 2.
In view of this, the Court found justification in the order issued by the ADM as it noted that the order was passed pursuant to a justifiable apprehension of respondent no. 2 regarding the threat or security in case the petitioners continue to stay in the property in question along with her.
The Court also took into account the bonafide of respondent no.2 as she offered to provide for an alternative accommodation to the petitioners despite there being no legal requirement to do so. In view of the aforesaid, the Court did not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned and the writ petition was dismissed.
Case title - Jeetu @ Amit Kumar Rawat And Anr. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lucknow And Anr.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Click Here To Read/Download Order