SRI PRUTHVIRAJ vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 03 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15503 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ
S/O DHOOL RAJ JAIN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SMT. LALITHA
W/O PRITHVIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT PREMRAJ AND SONS
INFRONT OF OSWAL GOLDEN SHOP
B.M.ROAD, SAKALESHPUR
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: P P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI: RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 127
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPUR SUB DIVISION
SAKALESHPURA-573 127
3.
SRI. DHOOL RAJ JAIN
S/O PREMRAJ
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
4. SMT. RASAAL BAI
W/O DHOOL RAJ JAIN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT PREMRAJ AND SONS
INFRONT OF OSWAL GOLDEN SHOP
B.M.ROAD, SAKALESHPUR
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: M SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI: P D SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
MAG(HI.NA.RA) NO.15/2023-24 DATED 06.02.2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 MAG (HI.NA.RA) 285/2019-20 DATED
06.01.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 15.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order
dated 06.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the order
dated 06.02.2024 passed by respondent No.1 under the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act').
- 3 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the father and mother
of petitioner No.1 and in-laws of petitioner No.2. Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 had approached respondent No.2 under the
provisions of Act. The petition filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4
has been forwarded to the Conciliation Officer as provided
under Section 18 of the Act. The Counsellor, Senior Citizen
Helpline of Hassan District has recorded the statement of the
applicants and the respondents before the Assistant
Commissioner and submitted the report on 26.11.2021. The
statement made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., the parents
before the Counsellor was that they are not maintaining good
health and they require about Rs.50,000/- for the medical
expenses and an arrangement may be made for the separate
residence of the respondents i.e., the son and daughter-in-law,
so that, they can live peacefully during their advanced age.
3. The statement of the petitioners/respondents was
that they and other children of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are all
residing in the family house and they were thrown out even
without considering the fact that one of the daughter is
suffering from cancer and it is in the said circumstances, they
have approached the police and also filed civil suit and obtained
an order of injunction. The parents are discriminating between
- 4 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
3 children and the father is getting the rental income of about
Rs.3,00,000/- per month and earning about Rs.40 lakhs per
annum from out of the coffee plantation and sale of areca nut.
The parents have the asset worth Rs.30 crores and they have
no financial difficulty and the house where they are presently
residing do not have the amenities and all the bank records and
income tax records are also in the custody of the parents.
Therefore, the same needs to be returned to them. It is
pursuant to the said report, respondent No.2 - Assistant
Commissioner has conducted the proceedings and passed the
impugned order. The order impugned reflects the very same
statements recorded before the Counsellor, which is reiterated
above.
4. At last paragraph before the operative portion of
the order, the Assistant Commissioner records that the
applicants i.e. the parents have stated that they would execute
the document in respect of the property situated on the hind
side of Sakaleshapura, old bus stand, which measures 2500
square feet and the opponents i.e. the petitioners herein would
vacate the house, where they are presently residing within one
year from 06.01.2022. In case of the respondents/petitioners
not shifting from the house in question, the document that
- 5 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
would be registered would be cancelled under Section 23 of the
Act and for the aforesaid arrangement, the respondents have
consented. It is only on the basis of the aforesaid statements of
the parties, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the
impugned order directing the execution of the registered
document in respect of the afore detailed property i.e., the
petitioners herein shall vacate the house property within one
year.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, the petitioners herein have approached the
Deputy Commissioner under Section 16(1) of the Act. The said
appeal was not maintainable. However, the Deputy
Commissioner has considered the same and dismissed the
appeal. It is the aforesaid two orders of respondent No.2 and
respondent No.1 are called in question in the present writ
petition.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that, the
residential house where they are residing along with their
parents is a family residence and they are entitled to reside in
the family house until the family properties are partitioned in
the manner known to law. It is their further contention that the
- 6 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
provision under which respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
approached the Assistant Commissioner is not clear from the
orders passed by the authorities. Inasmuch as, the Assistant
Commissioner has indicated in his order that he has exercised
the power under Section 9(1) and 23(1) of the Act. Section
9(1) and 23(1) of the Act does not empower the Assistant
Commissioner to pass the order of the kind which is at
Annexure-B.
7. It is the submission of learned senior counsel
Sri P P Hegde appearing for the petitioners that the suit in OS
No.75 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners and an ad-
interim injunction has been granted on 22.04.2021. The
another son Sri S D Suresh has filed OS No.63 of 2023 for
partition and separate possession and the said suit is pending
consideration. Petitioners herein have also instituted another
suit in OS No.10 of 2024, seeking partition and separate
possession and the same is also pending consideration. When
the suit for partition and separate possession are pending
consideration, the Assistant Commissioner gets no jurisdiction
to pass an order of eviction of one of the family members from
the family residence.
- 7 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
8. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel
that the tenor of order of the Assistant Commissioner is like an
arrangement made between the parties by consent. However,
no such consent has been given by the parties before the
Assistant Commissioner. Learned senior counsel has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S Vanitha
Vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and
1
Others and contends that in exercise of the powers conferred
under the Act, the daughter-in-law cannot be evicted from the
shared household.
9. Per contra, Sri P D Surana, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., the parents submits
that the strict rule of pleadings and provisions cannot be
applied in respect of the proceedings under the Act and
notwithstanding the fact that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not
specifically stated the relevant provisions of the Act, however,
respondent No.2 being an officer who has been assigned with
the powers under the Act for protection of the senior citizen,
has every power to pass orders in order to safeguard the
1
(2021) 15 SCC 730
- 8 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
interest of the senior citizens and therefore, any argument
contrary to the said proposition is liable to be rejected.
10. It is the submission of learned counsel that the
parties have made submissions before the Assistant
Commissioner for the interim arrangement and which has been
recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in its order. It is not
open for the petitioners to dispute the statements made before
the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel has pointed out
from the pleadings of the writ petition, more particularly,
paragraph 5, which reads as follows:
"The petitioners pleaded that they are having 3
daughters. One of the daughters is suffering from
cancer. The respondents assured before the Assistant
Commissioner that they would register the house
situated behind the old bus stand Sakaleshpura in favour
of petitioners (the area of is 2,500 Sq ft). It was agreed
by the petitioners that they would shift from the house of
respondents and settle in the house situated behind old
bus stand within a year from 06.01.2022."
11. In light of the aforesaid admission, the petitioners
have no right to challenge the impugned order. In addition, it is
contended that the residential house where the petitioners were
earlier residing belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the
- 9 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
petitioners cannot insist respondent Nos.3 and 4 to allow them
to reside in the residential house in question, in contrast of the
wish and will of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The occupation of the
petitioners in the family house was only a permissive
occupation and the petitioners have no legal or vested right to
insist respondent Nos.3 and 4 to permit them to reside in the
residential house in question. The fact that the petitioners have
filed suit for injunction during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Assistant Commissioner suggests that they have no
intention of vacating the house in question within one year
from the date of the order, so as to enable respondent Nos.3
and 4 to comply with the direction of the Assistant
Commissioner.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
Shamsher Singh Vs District Magistrate, U T
(i)
2
Administration, Chandigarh and Others ;
(ii) Skanda Sharath Vs Asst. Commissioner and
3
Others ; and
(iii) Rakesh Soni and Others Vs Premlata Soni and
4
Others .
2
MANU/PH/0394/2017
3
WP No.1171/2019 DD 13.02.2019
- 10 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
and contends that;
(i) the Tribunal under the Act possesses the power to
grant the relief of possession to senior citizen or parent;
(ii) Till such time, the petitioners establish their right of
ownership or right to remain in possession of the residential
house in question in the pending suit they cannot be permitted
to reside in the residential house in question;
(iii) Merely because the parents have allowed residence
so long as relations were cordial does not mean that the
parents were forced to bear the burden throughout their life.
Children of the senior citizen can live in the house only at the
mercy of the parents upto the time the parents allow them to
stay.
13. It is his further contention that since the petitioners
have approached the Civil Court seeking partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties and seriously
contesting the matters, are not entitled for any relief in the
present writ petition. In view of the fact that the petitioners
have challenged the order passed by the Assistant
4
MANU/RH/1282/2019
- 11 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner and filed the
suit for partition and separate provisions before the Civil Court
at Sakaleshapura, the question of respondent Nos.3 and 4
executing the deed of conveyance of the property measuring
2,500 square feet situated at the hind side of Sakaleshapura,
old bus stand does not arise. In that event, the order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner insofar as the execution of
document by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the
petitioners herein does not arise. Accordingly, the only order
that needs to be given effect to is the order containing the
eviction of the petitioners from the residential house in
question. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the writ
petition.
14. On 12.10.2026, this Court after hearing for
sometime had passed the following order:
"Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.P.Hegde
appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel
Sri.P.D.Surana appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.
The principal contention of the writ petitioners is
that, respondent nos.3 and 4 herein had approached the
Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority under
Section 9(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking maintenance from
- 12 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
their children, however, the Assistant Commissioner has
enlarged the scope of the proceedings and has
considered the claim under Section 23 of the Act and
directed the petitioners to vacate the residential house
where they are presently residing.
The copy of the petition filed before the Assistant
Commissioner is not placed on record. In order to verify
the prayer sought in the petition filed by respondent
nos.3 and 4 before the Assistant Commissioner, the
records of the Assistant Commissioner relating to
passing of the order at Annexure-B is necessary.
Therefore, learned HCGP is directed to secure the
records relating to the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner as per Annexure-B."
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, learned High
Court Government Pleader has made available the file
maintained by respondent No.2 whose order is impugned in the
present writ petition. On perusal of the file, it is seen that
respondent Nos.3 and 4 had approached respondent No.2 on
20.07.2021 by submitting an application in Form-A (Rule 3). As
against Column-13 regarding the other information which the
applicants intends to furnish, it is stated that the detailed
complaint is enclosed. It is seen from the records that there is
no written detailed complaint attached to the application in
- 13 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
Form-A. There is a report from Senior Citizen Helpline dated
26.11.2021 enclosing the statements of the applicants and the
opponents recorded on 16.10.2021 in respect of the complaint
dated 20.07.2021. The report of the Counsellor, Senior Citizen
Helpline refers to the statements recorded on 16.10.2021 and
informs the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter in
accordance with law. It is pursuant to the said report of the
Senior Citizen Helpline, notice of hearing was issued on
24.12.2021 fixing the date of hearing as 29.12.2021.
16. From the order sheet maintained by respondent
No.2, it is seen that no hearing took place on 29.12.2021.
However, the proceedings appear to have been conducted on
06.01.2022. In the order sheet, it is recorded as follows:
" Case called. Both parties heard. G.Tree made
and singed by both parties. A pleaded for R to evict
their house. R has 3 daughters, with 1 daughter
suffering from blood cancer. As per High Court
directions eviction order cannot be issued in the cases
under Senior Citizen Act, 2007 against the daughter-in-
law.
Appellant has agreed to provide residential plot in
old bus stand back side [2500 sq feet] in Sakleshpur
town and the respondent has agreed to vacate the
parental house within 1 year from today. If R failed to
- 14 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
vacate the parental house within 1 year from today, any
registered deed executed by the A for transfer of
property for the said residential plot would be deemed
to be void as per Sec 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007."
17. The order sheet is signed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2
and respondent No.3. On a reading of the statements recorded
by respondent No.2, which is extracted above, it can be easily
inferred that there was an understanding/consensus between
the petitioners and respondent No.3 to the effect that the
registered deed of transfer in respect of the property on the
hind side of old bus sand (measuring 2500 square feet) would
be executed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners
have agreed to vacate the family house where they are
presently residing within one year from 06.01.2022. It is based
on the said consensus of the parties, respondent No.2 has
passed the impugned order verbatim reproducing the
statements recorded in the order sheet dated 06.01.2022.
18. From the order impugned coupled with the
statement recorded in the order sheet dated 06.01.2022, there
is no doubt in understanding that respondent No.3 herein had
agreed to execute a deed of conveyance in respect of the
- 15 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
property measuring 2500 square feet situated on the hind side
of old bus stand and the petitioners have agreed to vacate the
family house within one year. There is an obligation on the part
of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3 to comply with
the statement made before respondent No.2. On the ground
that the contentions of the parties was not considered by
respondent No.2 and passed the order on 06.01.2022 and also
on the ground that respondent No.2 has exceeded its
jurisdiction in passing the order dated 06.01.2022, the
petitioners had preferred appeal before respondent No.1 -
Deputy Commissioner. Though the same was not
maintainable, nevertheless, respondent No.1 - Deputy
Commissioner had dismissed the appeal.
19. It is seen from the writ petition papers that as on
the date of passing of the impugned order by the Assistant
Commissioner on 06.01.2022, an order of injunction restraining
respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein from dispossessing the
petitioners from the suit schedule property i.e. the family
residence was in force. The said fact was recorded by the
Counsellor, Senior Citizen Helpline. However, the details of the
suit and the date of order of injunction is not recorded and
neither the petitioners nor respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
- 16 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
brought to the notice of respondent No.2 about the nature of
suit and the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. The
fact that the petitioners have filed the appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner challenging the impugned order and continuing
to prosecute the suit in OS No.75 of 2021 and the filing of suit
in OS No.10 of 2024 in respect of the suit schedule properties
including the family house, so also, the property which was
agreed to be transferred in favour of the petitioners and the
contest made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the aforesaid suits
discerns that both the parties had no intention to adhere to
their statements made before respondent No.2 which has been
recorded in the order sheet. The direction issued by respondent
No.2 for vacating the family house by the petitioners is
dependent on the execution of deed of transfer by respondent
Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioners.
20. Since both the parties have not complied with their
mutual obligations in terms of the impugned order, the said
order which has been passed on the basis of consent of the
parties cannot be enforced or interfered with. In light of the
pending civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent
No.3 and other family members and in light of subsistence of
the interim orders passed therein, the petitioners and
- 17 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are required to work out their legal
remedies in the pending suits and not in terms of the order
passed by respondent No.2, which is impugned herein. The
impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not capable of
implementation in respect of the contingent responsibility of
both the parties.
21. Other than recording the statement of parties, more
particularly, the statement recorded in the order sheet dated
06.01.2022, there is no other consideration of the contention of
the parties. The impugned order does not disclose as to the
provision under which such an order could have been passed by
respondent No.2. Though in the operative portion of the order,
it is stated that respondent No.2 has exercised the power under
Section 9(1) and Section 23(1) of the Act, however, the nature
of direction does not fit into the provisions of Section 9(1) or
Section 23(1) of the Act.
22. As noticed supra, there is no clarity in the
application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before respondent
No.2. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the order
impugned, which has been passed by respondent No.2 based
on the consensus/agreement of the parties and both the parties
- 18 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
have declined to adhere to their statements need not be
quashed and similarly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also not
entitled to seek implementation of the impugned order for the
reasons stated supra in view of restraint orders passed by the
Civil Court.
23. It is to be observed that the respondents No.3 and
4 have not challenged the impugned order if they are aggrieved
and it is not open for them to contend that the Assistant
Commissioner could not have made the eviction of the
petitioners from the family house subject to execution of the
document in respect of the property measuring 2500 square
feet at the hind side of Sakaleshpura old bus stand.
24. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of .
(ii) The prayer of the writ petitioners for quashing of
the impugned orders is rejected in view of the finding recorded
in paragraphs 22 and 23 above.
- 19 -
WP No. 15503 of 2024
(iii) The petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have to
work out their remedies in the pending suits in OS No.75 of
2021, OS No.63 of 2023 and OS No.10 of 2024.
(iv) It is open for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to initiate
fresh proceedings under the provisions of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the manner
known to law, however, which shall not be in contrast to the
prayers in the pending civil suits and the subsisting interim
orders.
Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
BGN