M.MOHAMED SAFFEE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The writ petitioner is none other than the son of the second respondent. The second respondent herein filed petition under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thanjavur. The Maintenance Tribunal vide order dtd. 20/4/2022 directed the writ petitioner to evict the petition mentioned premises within six months. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent herein. The first respondent vide Order dtd. 30/9/2022 declined to interfere with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel on either side raised very many contentions. The basic facts are not in dispute. The property in question belonged to Late Mohamed Ismail. He was the Principal of Rajah Serfoji Government College, Thanjavur. He passed away in the year 2018 leaving behind his wife M.Ameerjon, son Mohamed Saffee and a daughter as surviving legal heirs. The case of the second respondent is that on 3/10/2020, the writ petitioner dispossessed her. She therefore wanted residential order from the Maintenance Tribunal. As already noted, the Maintenance Tribunal went to the extent of ordering eviction against the petitioner and the said order was also confirmed by the first respondent. Before I test the correctness of the impugned orders, I must note that under Sec. 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, only aggrieved senior citizen can maintain appeal before the appellate authority. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 129 ( K.Raju V. Union of India ) had categorically held that only a senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal may prefer an appeal and that there is no room for others to prefer appeal. The Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court disagreed with the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in AIR 2014 P & H 121 ( Paramjit Kumar Saroya V. Union of India ). Therefore, the first respondent ought to have returned the appeal memorandum filed by the writ petitioner straightaway.