BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) Petitioners Bhaskar son of Sh.Dharam Pal and his wife Ruchi, both residents of House No.1956/2, Kaziwara near Krishan Temple, Ambala City have brought the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India against respondents i.e. State of Haryana, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment through District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Ambala and private respondent No.2 Dharampal, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dtd. 27/11/2018 passed by District Magistrate, copy Annexure Pl by virtue of which application of respondent No.2 Dharampal has been accepted and eviction order has been passed against the petitioners.

(3.) As per the version of the petitioners, petitioner No.l Bhaskar is son and petitioner No.2 Ruchi is daughter - in - law of respondent No.2 Dharampal; the petitioners got married in the year 2015 and were blessed with a female child, namely, Aaradhya in the year 2015; that father of respondent No.2, namely, Kanshi Ram was allotted a house bearing No.2526/2 Kaziwara, Ambala City by the Rehabilitation Department in the year 1955; Kanshi Ram during his life time had executed a will on 7/2/1996; he had purchased another house bearing No.1956/2, Kaziwara Ambala City in the name of his son Dharampal (respondent No.2) vide registered sale deed dtd. 12/1/1988; Kanshi Ram had expired on 22/2/1996 and after his death his two sons namely Sudarshan and Gulshan became owners of the house on the basis of will executed by him in their favour; that Neelam mother of petitioner No.l had purchased house No.2526/2 from her brothers-in-law, namely, Sudarshan and Gulshan vide registered sale deed dtd. 27/5/2013; the house bearing No.2526/2 purchased in the name of petitioner No.l was given on rent and the parties resided together in the house in question; that after birth of a female child, respondent No.2 along with his wife and unmarried son Rohit shifted to the house purchased by them, whereas petitioners continued living in the house in dispute; that respondent No.2 wanted to sell house bearing No. 1956/2 in which petitioner No.l has been residing since his birth and petitioner No.2 since her marriage; the petitioner No.l resisted such attempt stating that he was ready to make payment for the same; a panchayati agreement was scribed on 3/2/2017 in which it was settled that petitioners would pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs besides giving cylinder, oven, inverter set to the respondent No.2 on 9/2/2017 and thereafter the house would be transferred in the name of petitioner No.l through a gift deed; that petitioner No.l then prepared a demand draft in the sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs vide No.099033 dtd. 16/2/2017, issuing cheque in the sum of Rs.2.00 lakh bearing No.84160 dtd. 25/2/2017 and offered those to respondent No.2, but he refused to accept the same and backed out of the family settlement; that Smt.Neelam mother of petitioner No.l out of vengeance sold house No.2526/2 vide registered sale deed dtd. 17/8/2017 to deprive the petitioners of their rights to the house already in their possession, where they were putting up; that thereafter respondent No.2 moved an application under Sec. 22(2) of Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on frivolous grounds stating that they had sold the house for clearing the debt of petitioner No.l; a few months prior he had offered to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs to respondent No.2 as per family settlement; that after selling house bearing No.2526/2, in which the respondent No.2 along with wife and younger son Rohit had been living, he intentionally took the other house on rent just to make out a case that they have no house to live in; that respondent No.2 has deposited the sale proceeds of the house in the banks and is having more than Rs.16.00 lakhs in the bank and post office accounts getting handsome interest thereon; petitioner No.l is employed as Stenographer on ad hoc basis on meagre salary of of Rs.16,000.00 per month, which has not been paid to him from April 2018 on account of non-availability of funds by Government of Haryana; that respondent No.2 on instigation of his wife and son is bent upon to oust the petitioners without any rhyme or reason; petitioners have no other place to live; the application was moved by respondent No.2 just to get the petitioners ejected. According to the petitioners, they are not in unauthorized possession of the house; learned District Magistrate has erred in not going into the details of the case. In the end, the petitioners prayed that their petition be accepted.