Eviction Right Under Senior Citizens Act Possible Only When Property Was Owned By Them: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a senior citizen holding an irrevocable power of attorney doesn't entitle him the right to evict under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as he was not the owner of the property.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order by which the Application under Sections 21 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the Senior Citizen seeking the possession of the House in Chandigarh was allowed.

The single bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi observed, "The direction which has been given by the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-17) 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 Petitioner, daughter of the Senior Citizen, appeared in person while the Senior Citizen was represented by Advocate Sachin Jain was the official Respondents by Additional Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Advocate Sanjiv Ghai.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner No.1 was the daughter of Respondent No.2- Senior Citizen (father). The latter filed the Application invoking the jurisdiction under the 2007 Act for the protection of life and liberty and the property i.e. House in Chandigarh on the ground that he is a general power of attorney holder. He sought eviction of his daughter from the property in question. The Application was allowed by the District Magistrate to the extent that the left portion of the house which is in the occupation of the Petitioner No.1 should be vacated by her and the CCTV cameras which have been fixed in the house should be removed.

Petitioner No.1 submitted that as the 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 the Petitioner No.1 to vacate the House, Chandigarh and therefore, the direction is beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned as per 2007 Act.

Counsel for the Senior Citizen submitted that though there was an agreement to sell between the original owner of the property in question and the Senior Citizen, an irrevocable Power of Attorney had been given to the Senior Citizen, which entitles him to claim the said property under his ownership and the said claim has rightly been accepted by the authority concerned exercising power under 2007 Act.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that as of now, there is only an agreement to sell of the property in question by the Owner with the Senior Citizen and an irrevocable power of attorney which clearly shows that the property in question actually belongs to the Senior Citizen.

The Court cited Supreme Court's decision in M.S. Ananthamurthy and another vs. J. Manjula and others wherein, it has been held 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.

"Once, as per the settled principle of law, the property does not belong to the respondent No.2-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 said fact in the correct perspective, the authorities have exercised jurisdiction under the 2007 Act so as to treat the respondent No.2-senior citizen as the owner of the property in question in order to give direction to petitioner No.1 to vacate the premises of the same," the Court held.

The Court thus concluded that the possession of the Senior Citizen not being the owner of the property in question as of now, cannot seek the eviction of Petitioner No.1 from the premises of the property in question, but in case he wants to seek possession of the property being the holder of the power of attorney of the property in question, he has to avail the remedy before the Civil Court and not under the 2007 Act.

The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed.

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

Appearances

Petitioner- In-Person

Respondent- Additional Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Advocate Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate Sandeep Jain, Advocate Davinder Kumar, Advocate Sachin Jain, Advocate K.D. Sachdeva.

Click here to read/ download Order