While Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Is Subject To Outcome Of Pending Suit, Protection Offered To Elders Shouldn't Be Defeated: Allahabad HC

The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that while the order for eviction was subject to the outcome of the previous suit, the protection granted under it must not be defeated.

“Any margin of restriction created by courts may be wholly counter productive to fulfilment 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 came into the world through them”, held the Court.

Case Background

Petitioner is the younger of the two sons of his father, Respondent No.3. According to him, his elder brother and father were on great terms and lived together in the same house. He contended that on his falling out with his brother, the petitioner's brother and father colluded to file proceedings against him under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.

Petitioner submitted that this was done only to cause an impediment in the earlier suit proceedings instituted by him, in which he had sought an injunction against his father and his brother. Subsequently, he filed objections in the proceedings under 2007 Act. However, the same were rejected and a direction was issued to evict the petitioner from the property in question. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit instituted was at best a proxy litigation on behalf of his elder brother. It was submitted that no proceedings under the Act of 2007 could be initiated to evict the petitioner; the most that the father could do was to claim maintenance from his sons. Lastly, the petitioner contended that proceedings under the Act were summary in nature. It was submitted that while the suit filed by the petitioner remained pending, there lay no jurisdiction with the authorities to pass any order to evict him.

Per contra, counsel for private respondents submitted that there was no collusion between the elder brother and the father of the petitioner. The respondents pointed out that there existed a Comprehensive Action Plan (C.A.P.) in the State of U.P. regarding the Act and the Rules. It was stated that the same empowered the District Magistrate under Chapter V of the Act, to order eviction from a property owner by a senior citizen based on an application. Lastly, it was submitted that it cannot be said that the aforesaid proceedings would be abated or placed in abeyance during the pendency of a civil suit instituted by the party whose eviction had been sought, as this could defeat the entire purpose of the Act.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the father and the brother of the petitioner had colluded to institute proceedings against him. It was held that the application filed by the father for eviction was maintainable before the District Magistrate and that there did not exist a pre-condition for maintenance in order to file for eviction.

In Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District and Ors. a daughter-in-law had filed a suit under the Protection Form Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in-laws, who had filed a suit under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking to evict her from their house. The Apex Court had observed that the daughter-in-law had sought residence contending that the proceedings set up under the Senior Citizens Act were a way of defeating her claims under the DV Act. It was held that no submissions were made to the effect that the authorities under the Act and the Rules, had no jurisdiction to order eviction under Chapter V of the Act.

The Court held that while such a submission was not presented before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, the Apex Court dealt with a part of it in its judgment.

“In fact the Supreme Court observed in summation point 24(ii) and 24(iv) that the daughter-in-law (in that case) may not be evicted summarily during pendency of her proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thus, it appears to us the Supreme Court itself was cognizant that the summary eviction proceeding may otherwise arise and be concluded under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, it reasoned that such proceeding may not be concluded and made final during the pendency of another proceedings under another special Act,” held Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh.

Further, the Court held that while the Civil Courts possessed the jurisdiction to order eviction under Chapter V of the Act read with the Rules and the Comprehensive Action Plan, the summary proceedings would remain subject to the outcome of any civil suit where larger issues were involved.

The Court observed that in the present situation it was not willing to rule as to the exact extent and nature of proceedings to which summary eviction under Chapter V of the Act were subject to. However, it held that in the present case, summary eviction would be determined by the final outcome of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner for injunction.

Accordingly, the present writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu and Anr. v. District Magistrate and 2 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 33687 of 2021]