The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, it is mandatory for the District Magistrate (DM) to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen is protected.
Brief of Case:
The Court was hearing a plea moved by a husband and wife as petitioners challenging the eviction order passed under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare Act, 2007. Respondent No. 2 is the mother of petitioner, she submitted through her counter-affidavit that since her son and daughter-in-law (petitioners) used to harass her, therefore, she filed application before DM. Petitioners argued 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 Citizens Act.
Court discarded the argument and held that 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 wellbeing of senior citizens. Court accepted that u/s 4 and 5, ADM can't pass orders in summary proceedings, however, considering the present circumstances of cases, petitioners were staying along with respondent No. 2 and the steps were taken under Section 4 and 5 to protect and secure the life and the property of the senior citizens. 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 while dismissing the Writ Petition also took into account the bonafide intention of respondent No. 2 as she offered to provide for an alternative accommodation despite there being no legal requirement to do so.
.webp)
