Senior Citizens Act Creates Eviction Right Only When Property Owned By Senior Citizen Is Transferred To Children Or Relatives: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order directing the vacation of the property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, observing that order can only be passed when the senior citizen is the owner of the property in possession of their children or relative.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "The direction which has been given by the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 07.04.2016...is without jurisdiction and appreciating the provisions of the 2007 Act which only creates a right with the senior citizen qua the property being owned by them and has been transferred to the children or relatives without any consideration or fulfilling the essentials which are laid down under the Act."

The plea was filed for setting aside the order passed in 20-16 by which, the application under Section 21 and 22 of the Act, filed by the senior citizen seeking the possession of the House was allowed by the District Magistrate Chandigarh.

The application of eviction was filed by the senior citizen against his daughter on the ground that he is a general power of attorney holder with respect to the house.

The daughter appearing in person argued that her father (senior citizen) is not the owner of the property in question, no order could have been passed in his favour by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act so as to direct her to vacate the House.

After hearing the submissions, the Court found that, the dispute is with regard to a house, which is in the possession of the daughter and the possession of the said property is being claimed by the senior citizen claiming himself to be the owner of the property.

The judge noted the Senior Citizen's submission that as of now, there is an agreement to sell of the property in question by the owner namely Bilhar Singh with the senior citizen namely Gulshan Beer Singh and there is an irrevocable power of attorney which has been given by Bilhar Singh in his favour which fact clearly shows that the property in question actually belongs to him/

Reliance was placed on recent decision of M.S. Ananthamurthy and another vs. J. Manjula and others to underscore that the power of attorney and the agreement to sell, even if the same are irrevocable, does not create a title or create interest in the property.

Justice Sethi found that the property does not belong to the senior citizen as of now and even in the record of the Chandigarh Administration, the property in question stands in the name of Bilhar Singh. Without appreciating the fact in the correct perspective, the authorities have exercised jurisdiction under the 2007 Act so as to treat the senior citizen as the owner of the property in question in order to give direction to petitione to vacate the premises of the same.

Consequently, the Court held that in case, the possession of the property is to be sought by the senior citizen being the holder of the power of attorney of the property in question, he has to avail the remedy under the Civil Court and not under 2007 Act.

Petitioner No.1 in person.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Addl. Standing Counsel for U.T. Chd., for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate, with Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.

Title: Harjit Kaur and another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others

Click here to read/download the order