Any Affected Party May Prefer Appeal Against Order Of Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007: Delhi High Court

A Single Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh ruled,

"appeals by any affected party who may be aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal, as constituted under the Act and the Rules, would be liable to be entertained before the Appellate Tribunal."

The findings may be contrasted with a recent judgment of the Madras High Court in K. Raju v. Union of India & Anr. where it was held that that only senior citizens/ parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

Disagreeing with the above judgment, Justice Singh relied on a ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864, where it was held that Section 16(1) of the Senior Citizen Act must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.

It may be noted at this juncture that Section 15 of the Act provides for Constitution of an Appellate Tribunal. It states— State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one Appellate Tribunal for each district to hear the appeal against the order of the Tribunal.

Section 16 contemplates the mechanism for filing of Appeals and sub-clause (1) thereof states— Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

In this context, the Punjab High Court had observed:

"An appeal is envisaged "against the order of the Tribunal". This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent "aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal". This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount."

In the instant case, eviction orders under Rule 22 (3)(1) (i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 were passed against the Petitioner by a District Magistrate.

The Petitioner had filed a writ petition before the High Court, stating that an appeal under the Senior Citizens Act can only be filed by a senior citizen.

At the outset, the Single Bench noted that the question as to who can prefer an appeal under the Senior Citizens Act has already been decided by it in at least three cases viz.:

• Naveen Kumar v. GNCTD & Ors., WP(C) 1337/2020
• Amit Kumar v. Kiran Sharma & Anr., WP(C) 106/2021
• Shumir Oliver & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors., WP(C) 2857/2021

The abovementioned judgments clarify that any `affected person' can prefer the appeal and not just a senior citizen or parent.

The Bench observed that despite the law being settled, a large number of writ petitions are filed before it on this issue.

"There appears to be some confusion as to which orders are appealable, to which forum and by whom," the Bench remarked while proceeding to set out the provisions which are applicable separately qua maintenance and eviction proceedings.

It issued directions to the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner/ DM to specify the appellate mechanism available to litigants in maintenance and eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Bench ordered:

"Since, in most cases, the appellate forum and the period of limitation is not within the knowledge of litigants and sometimes even lawyers, it is directed that the following two sentences be added at the end of every order passed by the initial forum i.e., the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act or, in eviction cases, the Deputy Commissioner/DM under Rule 23(3) of the Rules as amended on 19th December, 2016:

For maintenance cases: "The present order would be appealable, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 16 of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, to the Appellate Tribunal, presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days."

For eviction cases: "The present order would be appealable under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December, 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days.""

Justice Singh further directed that the present order shall be communicated to all the Maintenance Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and the concerned Presiding Officers who are exercising powers under the Rules.

The order shall also be sent to the Registrar General for placing a copy at the filing counter so that whenever writ petitions are filed against original orders, the Registry can also inform lawyers of the availability of the alternate remedy, in case they wish to avail of the same.

Coming to the merits of the case, the Bench noted that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Rule 22(3)(4) against the impugned order of the Maintenance Tribunal.

"In respect of eviction, the first forum would be the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate. A challenge to the order of the Deputy Commissioner/DM would lie before the Divisional Commissioner," the Bench observed while disposing of the writ petition.

Case Title: Rakhi Sharma v. State & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order