SATBIR Vs. TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act'), vide which the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the shop in his possession as a tenant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a tenant under respondent No.2 in a shop. The rent is being paid regularly. Respondent No.2 filed application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the shop in his possession as a tenant. Despite the fact that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for the reason that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with respondent No.2, still the application was entertained and order of eviction was passed, which is totally without jurisdiction. He further submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 tried to put undue pressure on the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No.380 on 22.12.1984 for permanent injunction, which was decreed in his favour on 19.1.1985 on the statement made by the defendants therein that the petitioner will not be dispossessed unless in due course of law. On the plea that respondent No.2 was again trying to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question by misusing of process of law, Civil Suit No.7 of 2012/13.1.2012 was filed, which was decreed on 19.1.2012 restraining the respondents therein from dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in question unless in due course of law. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed eviction petition against the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Faridabad, which is pending. He further submitted that the aforesaid facts were duly placed before the Tribunal, however, those have not even been noticed in the impugned order. The order being totally without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 could not dispute the fact that there is no relation between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Further he did not dispute the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can be invoked either by the parents against their children or by the senior citizen against their relatives. He further did not dispute the fact that eviction petition has been filed by respondent No.2, which is pending at Faridabad. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Relevant provisions of the Act are extracted below: