ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed in order to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 01.06.2017, purported to have been passed under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), directing the petitioners to vacate Flat No.3257/1, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "property in question"), within 15 days, failing which the Station House Officer, Police Station (South), U.T., Chandigarh is directed to get the said flat vacated and hand over physical possession thereof to respondent no.2.

(2.) Concededly, the property in question is owned by respondent no. Petitioner no.1 is the son of respondent no.2; petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and petitioners no.3 to 5 are the children of petitioners no.1 and Respondent no.2 is a widow lady, whose husband had expired in 2005. The application filed by respondent no.2 under Sections 22 & 23 of the Act has been allowed by the District Magistrate, holding that the property in question belongs to respondent no.2 and she does not want the petitioners herein to continue in possession on account of their mis-behaviour with her, much-less declaring them to be in unauthorized possession.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 22 of the Act as the order could have been passed only by the Tribunal, constituted under Section 7 of the Act. It is further submitted that once the order is passed by the Tribunal, the appeal would lie under Section 16 of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Section 15 of the Act. It is also submitted that Section 16 of the Act has been explained by this Court, holding that the right to appeal is not only meant for the senior citizens but also for any of the aggrieved party. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Magistrate has not taken into consideration the fact that the property in question was purchased with the contribution of petitioner no.1, who had been sending money to his father when he was working in Dubai. It is further submitted that in order to challenge the order of the District Magistrate, no Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and as such, the present petition has been filed.