Vineet Gulati vs District Magistrate Cum Appellate Authority And Ors

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M)

VINEET GULATI
...Petitioner

Versus

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND
OTHERS
...Respondents


1 The date when the judgment is reserved 25.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 31.10.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.11.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full
judgment, and reasons thereof.
N.A.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Argued by : Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Additional Standing Counsel with
Mr. Ashok Kanwal, Junior Panel Counsel for respondents No.1
and 2-U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Utkarsh Khatana, Advocate for respondent No.4.


KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. The proceedings of this Court have been instituted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-20) passed by the District
Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, U.T. Chandigarh (respondent No.1),
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, as also the
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 2-
order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh (respondent
No.2), under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act'). By the latter order, the application filed by
respondent No.3 under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act was partly allowed and
the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, was
directed to facilitate respondent No.3's entry into the first and second floors
of House No.3489, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. The petitioner was permitted to
continue residing in part of the ground floor during the period Smt. Santosh
Gulati, his mother and wife of respondent No.3, remained ill and required
medical care, subject to the further direction regarding handing over
possession upon her recovery.
Factual Matrix

2. Briefly stated as per the pleaded case, the petitioner, Vineet
Gulati, is the son of respondent No.3, Lalit Mohan Gulati, and brother of
respondent No.4, Sandeep Gulati. Respondent No.3 approached the
Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, U.T.
Chandigarh, by filing an application under Sections 21 and 22(2) read with
Section 24 of the Act, seeking protection of his life and property and eviction
of the petitioner from House No.3489, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. He also
sought payment of Rs.60,000/- per month towards alleged rental damages for
the preceding sixteen months and further rental damages at the same rate till
vacation of the premises. The controversy has its genesis in the transfer of
the subject property by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 in
November 2015, followed by its re-transfer in favour of respondent No.3
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 3-
through a registered deed dated 14.01.2021. The petitioner alleges that the
re-transfer was not a bona fide family transaction but was engineered to
facilitate proceedings under the Act against him. He also relies upon the
previous family disputes, proceedings initiated by his mother and a Will
dated 09.07.2018, which, according to him, records the earlier transfer of the
property in favour of respondent No.4.
3. The learned Maintenance Tribunal, by order dated 08.12.2023,
partly allowed the application. On the basis of the ownership verification
report received from the Estate Office, it recorded that respondent No.3 was
the owner of 100% share in the property in question. Taking note of the
strained relations between the parties and the order dated 09.08.2023 passed
in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, whereby respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 had been
restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt. Santosh
Gulati on the ground floor, the Tribunal permitted respondent No.3 to
occupy the first and second floors of the property. It further permitted Smt.
Santosh Gulati to reside in the house, if she so desired, and allowed the
petitioner to remain in part of the ground floor during the period she was ill
and required medical care. The petitioner was directed to hand over vacant
possession in terms of the order upon her recovery. He was also restrained
from interfering in the day-to-day affairs of respondent No.3. The Station
House Officer was directed to facilitate respondent No.3's entry into the
upper floors and to arrange periodic police visits to ensure protection of his
life and property.
4. The learned Tribunal, however, declined to grant monetary
maintenance at that stage, observing that respondent No.3 owned various
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 4-
properties in Chandigarh and neighbouring States and was drawing a
monthly pension of approximately Rs.60,000/-. The claim for monetary
relief was thus not accepted, and the directions were confined substantially
to protection of life and property and restoration of possession of the upper
floors.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before respondent No.1, registered as Appeal No.53/2023. The
Appellate Authority, by order dated 27.11.2025, dismissed the appeal and
upheld the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. It directed the
petitioner to hand over vacant physical possession of the first and second
floors of the house to respondent No.3 within thirty days from the date of
dispatch of the order. In the event of non-compliance, the Station House
Officer, Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, was directed to get the upper
floors vacated and hand over possession to respondent No.3. The Station
House Officer was also directed to depute a Sub-Inspector of Police along
with a lady Constable to visit respondent No.3 fortnightly to ensure
protection of his life and property. Respondent No.3 and respondent No.4
were further restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt.
Santosh Gulati on the ground floor.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the
impugned orders on the ground that the authorities have failed to examine
the foundational facts necessary for invoking the jurisdiction under the Act.
It is contended that the orders suffer from non-application of mind,
perversity and jurisdictional error, as material objections raised by the
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 5-
petitioner, particularly concerning the circumstances surrounding the re-
transfer of the property, have not been adequately dealt with.
7. It has been argued that respondent No.3 is financially
independent, receives a monthly pension of approximately Rs.68,000/- and
possesses substantial fixed deposits, besides several immovable properties.
According to learned senior counsel, the petitioner has specifically pointed
out that respondent No.3 is neither without means nor dependent upon the
subject property for his residence, and that the authorities failed to appreciate
the significance of these circumstances.
8. The principal submission is that the property was initially
transferred by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 in November
2015 and was subsequently re-transferred in favour of respondent No.3
through a registered deed dated 14.01.2021. It is contended that the re-
transfer was engineered with the sole object of invoking the provisions of the
Act to secure the petitioner's eviction. The timing of the transaction, the
earlier family disputes and the proceedings initiated by Smt. Santosh Gulati
are stated to demonstrate that the proceedings are essentially an attempt to
resolve an inter se property dispute between the two brothers through a
summary statutory mechanism.
9. Learned senior counsel has further contended that respondent
No.4 is the real driving force behind the proceedings and that respondent
No.3 is being used as a means to achieve the objective of evicting the
petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the Will dated 09.07.2018, which,
according to the petitioner, records the transfer of the subject property in
favour of respondent No.4 even prior to its alleged re-transfer in January
2021. It is submitted that this material circumstance, coupled with the earlier
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 6-
proceedings, was required to be examined by the authorities before accepting
the subsequent transaction as the foundation for invoking the Act.
10. Another limb of the petitioner's argument concerns the
circumstances in which Smt. Santosh Gulati had earlier approached the
authorities. It has been submitted that she had initiated proceedings under the
Act in July 2019 seeking protection of her life and security and cancellation
of the transfer of the property in favour of respondent No.4. She had also
approached the competent Court under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and filed proceedings under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance and protection
of her right of residence. It is contended that she suffered a brain stroke on
20.10.2019, became paralysed and thereafter required continuous medical
and nursing care, which was primarily undertaken by the petitioner.
11. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the application
filed by respondent No.3 was under Sections 21, 22(2) and 24 of the Act and
that none of these provisions, by themselves, authorise an order of eviction
in the manner passed by the authorities. It is argued that the authorities could
not have directed dispossession without examining the statutory conditions
governing interference with possession and without recording a finding
regarding the necessity of such a measure for protection of the senior citizen.
It is further contended that the authorities have failed to examine the
competing circumstances and the petitioner's long-standing residence in the
premises.
12. Lastly, it has been pointed out that Smt. Santosh Gulati passed
away on 18.12.2025, during the pendency of the proceedings, and that this
subsequent development also has a bearing upon the conditional
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 7-
arrangement made by the Maintenance Tribunal permitting the petitioner to
remain on part of the ground floor.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.3

13. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 has opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned orders are
based upon the material available on record and do not suffer from any
infirmity. It is contended that the petitioner is seeking to reopen findings
concurrently recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate
Authority, despite the fact that ownership of the subject property in favour of
respondent No.3 was not disputed before the statutory authorities.
14. Learned senior counsel has submitted that respondent No.3, a
retired Air Force veteran aged over 90 years, is the absolute owner of the
property, as evidenced by the Conveyance Deed dated 30.10.1968 and the
Redemption Deed dated 27.06.1996, and that the subsequent re-transfer was
duly effected through a registered deed dated 14.01.2021. The petitioner has
no independent proprietary or tenancy right in the premises and h is
occupation was purely permissive. The Appellate Authority, therefore,
rightly observed that the petitioner could not claim a right to remain in the
residential house against the wishes of its owner.
15. It has further been contended that the petitioner was disowned
by respondent No.3 in December 2015 on account of persistent harassment
and abusive conduct. Respondent No.3 has also alleged that the petitioner,
who himself owns an independent three bedroom duplex house at Zirakpur,
had forcibly dispossessed him and his daughter from the premises in
June/July 2020 and that preventive proceedings had been initiated against the
petitioner. According to learned senior counsel, the petitioner has no legal
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 8-
entitlement to insist upon occupying the property against the wishes of his
father.
16. Respondent No.3 has also disputed the allegation that the re-
transfer of the property was collusive or engineered to create jurisdiction
under the Act. It is submitted that once the property was re-transferred
through a registered instrument, respondent No.3 became its absolute owner
and was entitled to invoke the statutory remedies available for protection of
his life and property. The fact that respondent No.4 may have assisted him in
approaching the authorities does not establish that the proceedings were
instituted at the instance of respondent No.4 or that respondent No.3 was
acting under his influence. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 appeared
personally before the Maintenance Tribunal and asserted his grievance.
17. It has also been submitted that the Act does not require a senior
citizen to be destitute before seeking protection of his life and property. The
fact that respondent No.3 receives pension or owns other properties cannot
deprive him of the right to reside peacefully in his own house. The Tribunal
itself considered his financial position and declined the monetary claim,
while granting limited relief in respect of possession and protection.
18. Lastly, it has been argued that the petitioner was permitted to
remain in part of the ground floor only as a temporary arrangement to
facilitate the medical care of his mother. Smt. Santosh Gulati has since
passed away and, therefore, the basis for the said indulgence no longer
survives. The petitioner cannot claim any independent right of residence on
the strength of an arrangement which was expressly conditional.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 9-
Hearing and Mediation

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
20. By order dated 27.04.2026, this Court had directed the parties to
appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. However,
as per the report dated 09.07.2026 received from the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre, no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the
parties. This Court also interacted with the parties, both in person and
through video conferencing, but no possibility of settlement emerged. The
matter is, therefore, being decided on merits.
Findings Recorded by the Authorities Below

21. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be appropriate
to notice the material findings recorded by the authorities below. The
Maintenance Tribunal, on the basis of the ownership verification report,
recorded that respondent No.3 held 100% ownership in the subject property.
It also noticed that respondent No.3 was residing outside the premises
despite being its owner and that relations between the parties were not
cordial. The Tribunal further took note of the subsisting order dated
09.08.2023 passed in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which protected the possession of Smt.
Santosh Gulati on the ground floor.
22. On an overall consideration of the circumstances, the
Maintenance Tribunal permitted respondent No.3 to occupy the first and
second floors, while preserving the position of Smt. Santosh Gulati on the
ground floor. The petitioner was permitted to remain in part of the ground
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 10-
floor only during the period his mother required medical care. The Tribunal
also directed periodic police visits to ensure protection of respondent No.3
and his wife. At the same time, it declined the monetary maintenance claim,
keeping in view respondent No.3's pension and other properties.
23. The Appellate Authority, while affirming the aforesaid order,
recorded that respondent No.3 was the owner of the property and that the
petitioner had not disputed his ownership before the Tribunal. It further
observed that the petitioner was residing in the house as a licensee and had
no independent right to continue occupying it against the wishes of the
owner. The Appellate Authority also noticed the strained relations between
the parties and the various complaints and proceedings pending between
them. It found no patent illegality or perversity in the order passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Analysis and Conclusion

24. The principal issue requiring consideration is whether the
authorities below were competent to pass directions for restoration of
possession of the upper floors of the subject property to respondent No.3 and
whether such directions, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
can be sustained under the Act.
25. The Act is a welfare legislation enacted to provide more
effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior
citizens, consistent with the constitutional mandate underlying Articles 21
and 41 of the Constitution of India. Chapter V of the Act specifically deals
with the protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 21
contemplates measures for publicity, awareness and sensitisation, whereas
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 11-
Section 22 empowers the State Government to confer appropriate powers
and duties upon the District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the
Act are properly carried out. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 specifically
mandates the State Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for
providing protection of life and property of senior citizens.
26. In exercise of the rule-making power under Section 32 of the
Act, the Chandigarh Administration framed the Chandigarh Maintenance of
Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. The relevant provisions governing
eviction and protection of property were introduced under Rule 20 by the
2014 Amendment and were subsequently substituted by the Chandigarh
Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2017,
notified on 29.11.2017.
27. The aforesaid amendment provides a specific mechanism for
dealing with complaints concerning the life and property of senior citizens. It
contemplates forwarding of such complaints to the Additional Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, verification of title and relevant
facts through the Revenue Department/Tehsildar, issuance of notice to the
person sought to be evicted, consideration of the response and evidence, and
passing of an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded, where the
authority is satisfied that the property is in unauthorised occupation. The
amended provisions also provide for an appeal before the District
Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal and enforcement of the order through the
Police Department.
28. Thus, the statutory framework applicable to the present case
cannot be examined merely by referring to Sections 21 and 22 of the Act in
isolation. Section 22(2), read with Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Rules, as
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 12-
amended in 2017, provides the specific mechanism for protection of the life
and property of senior citizens. The application filed by respondent No.3 was
processed under this framework. Section 24, which deals with abandonment
of a senior citizen and the penal consequences thereof, is not, by itself, the
source of the power to order eviction. Likewise, Section 23 deals with
avoidance of certain transfers of property where the statutory conditions
prescribed therein are satisfied. It is not the exclusive source of the power to
secure possession for the protection of a senior citizen.
29. The legal position regarding the power of the authorities under
the Act to order eviction has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in several decisions. In S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District and others, (2021) 15 SCC 730, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the Tribunal under the Act may have the authority
to order eviction where such a measure is necessary and expedient to ensure
the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parent. It was, however,
emphasised that eviction must be considered after adverting to the competing
claims of the parties and cannot be ordered mechanically so as to defeat
rights protected under other beneficial legislation.
30. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in Samtola Devi v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court recognised that eviction may be ordered where necessary for
the protection of a senior citizen, but also made it clear that such relief is not
automatic and must be justified by the facts of the particular case. In that
matter, the Court found that the extreme measure of eviction was not
necessary in the circumstances, as the object could have been achieved
through less intrusive protective directions. The decision, therefore,
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 13-
underscores the requirement of examining necessity and proportionality
before directing eviction. The following were the observations made therein:
“31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere
specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction
of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such
a senior person. It is only on account of the observations
made by this Court in S. Vanitha v. Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District5 that the Tribunal under the
Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is
necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the
senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired
jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act
which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the
property to be void if it is against the interest of the
senior citizen.”
31. The position has thereafter been expressly reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.22768 of 2024,
decided on 04.08.2026. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal
constituted under the Act has the power to order eviction where such a
measure is necessary to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior
citizen. The Court explained that where a statute confers jurisdiction, it also
carries with it the power to undertake acts essentially necessary for its
effective implementation. The Court specifically relied upon the principles
laid down in S. Vanitha (supra) and Samtola Devi (supra) and restored the
eviction orders passed by the authorities in that case. The relevant paras of
the said judicial pronouncement read thus:
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 14-
“9. The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in
the dignity, respect and security it affords to its elderly.
Across cultures, religions, and civilizations, senior
citizens have been regarded not merely as dependents
requiring care, but as repositories of wisdom, experience,
and collective memory whose guidance enriches families
and society alike. Article 21 of the Constitution as
interpreted by this Court and Article 41 of the
Constitution envisage a social order that protects the
vulnerable and enables every individual to live with
dignity throughout the course of life. This commitment
finds statutory expression in the Act, enacted to ensure
that advancing age does not become synonymous with
neglect, insecurity, or indignity. In light of the aforesaid
constitutional mandate, the Parliament has enacted the
Act. The provisions of the Act incorporate the values
deeply rooted in our country’s civilizational ethos which
revere the mother and the father as divine. The Act is
intended to provide a speedy remedy for the senior
citizen.
10. Under Section 7 of the Act, the tribunals have been
constituted which have power under Section 8 of the Act
to conduct an inquiry following a summary procedure
with powers of a Civil Court. Section 27 of the Act
explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It is a
well-settled legal proposition that where an Act confers a
jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing
all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially
necessary to its execution (Income Tax Officer
Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, 1968 SCC OnLine
SC 71). On this analogy, we have no hesitation in holding
that the tribunal under the Act has power to order
eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection
of a senior citizen.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 15-
11. It is noteworthy that a three-Judge Bench of this
Court (S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730), while
dealing with claims arising out of the provisions of the
Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 held that the tribunal under the Act may have
the authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and
expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a
senior citizen or a parent. It was further held that
eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to
maintenance and protection. Taking into account the
aforesaid observations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
(Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 669),held that tribunal under the Act may order
eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
protection of senior citizens. Another two-Judge Bench of
this Court (Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector &
Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine 2077) reiterated the same view.”
32. It has also been held by in Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of
Bihar, SLP (Civil) No.7675 of 2024, decided on 30.01.2025 , that the
Tribunal under the Act possesses the authority to order eviction to ensure the
maintenance and protection of senior citizens, on the basis of the law laid
down in S. Vanitha (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed therein
that, “10. As far as the authority of Tribunal under the Act to order eviction
is concerned, this court in S Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru
Urban District & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 730, specifically held that the
Tribunal under the Act has the authority to order eviction to ensure the
maintenance and protection of the senior citizens. This case involved a
similar challenge to the order of eviction by daughter-in-law. The relevant
paragraph (Para 25) from the case is extracted below:
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 16-
“25. The substance of sub-section (2) of Section 23, as
submitted by the second and third respondents, is that the
Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass an order directing the
eviction of the appellant who is their daughter-in-law.
According to the submission, the power to order eviction is
implicit in the provision guaranteeing a “right to receive
maintenance out of an estate” and the enforcement of that right.
In supporting the submission, they have referred to the view
which has been taken by several High Courts, indicating that
the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from
the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach
of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. The Tribunal
under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to
order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.
Eviction, in other words would be an incident of the
enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection.
However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the
competing claims in the dispute. It is necessary to recapitulate
that the situation in the present case is that the eviction was
sought of the daughter-in-law i.e. the appellant. The land,
where the house has been constructed, was originally
purchased by the son of the applicants who are seeking eviction
of their daughter-in-law. The son had purchased the property a
few months before his marriage to the appellant. He had
subsequently transferred the property by a registered sale deed
to his father and the fact that it was for the same consideration
after the lapse of several years is of significance. The father, in
turn, executed a gift deed in favour of his spouse. The appellant
has asserted that she had been living in the house, as her
matrimonial residence, until the application was filed. Her
spouse has (according to her) deserted her and their minor
daughter and left them in the lurch. The electricity to the
premises was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Their
daughter has sought admission to an engineering degree course
however her father, fourth respondent has not provided any
financial support. The transfers which took place cannot be
viewed in isolation from the context of the ongoing matrimonial
dispute which has taken place. The issue is whether the
appellant as the daughter-in-law and the minor daughter could
have been ousted in the above manner.”

SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 17-
33. Similarly, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and others, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2077 that, “7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was
enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection.
Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as
to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has
observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a
child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a
breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.2 In the present case,
despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his
statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties
owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell
in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.”
34. The aforesaid decisions make it clear that the power to order
eviction is not an unrestricted or automatic power, but is an ancillary
measure available where the circumstances demonstrate that it is necessary
and expedient to secure the protection of a senior citizen. The competing
rights and the proportionality of the proposed direction must necessarily be
considered. At the same time, the absence of a specific provision in the Act
using the expression 'eviction' does not, by itself, denude the authorities of
such power when the statutory framework, read as a whole, permits the
protection of life and property of senior citizens.
35. Examined in the light of the aforesaid statutory scheme and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the objection regarding lack of
jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The proceedings were initiated by
respondent No.3 for protection of his life and property under the statutory
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 18-
mechanism applicable in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The record
indicates that the matter was referred for verification of ownership, a report
was obtained from the Revenue authorities, and notice was issued to the
petitioner to show cause. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and
placed his objections before the Maintenance Tribunal. The order was
thereafter passed upon consideration of the rival versions and the material
available on record.
36. The ownership of respondent No.3 over the subject property
was verified by the competent authorities. The Maintenance Tribunal
specifically recorded that respondent No.3 held 100% share in the property
in question. The Appellate Authority also noticed that the petitioner had not
disputed such ownership before the statutory forum. The petitioner has not
demonstrated any independent proprietary or tenancy right in the subject
premises. His principal objection is founded upon the circumstances in
which the property was re-transferred in favour of respondent No.3 in
January 2021.
37. The contention regarding the alleged collusive nature of the re-
transfer has been considered. It is true that the property was initially
transferred in favour of respondent No.4 in 2015 and was subsequently re-
transferred in favour of respondent No.3 in 2021. The petitioner has also
relied upon the earlier Will dated 09.07.2018 and the proceedings initiated
by his mother to contend that the subsequent transaction was engineered to
create a foundation for invoking the Act. These circumstances indicate that
the parties have been embroiled in a prolonged family dispute. However, the
chronology of the transactions and the existence of earlier proceedings, by
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 19-
themselves, do not establish that the registered re-transfer deed is sham or
that respondent No.3 is not the real owner of the property.
38. A Will, being a testamentary instrument, does not by itself
operate as an inter vivos transfer of title. The subsequent registered re-
transfer deed and the ownership verification report were the material
documents before the authorities. The petitioner has not demonstrated that
the registered deed has been set aside by any competent Court or that the
authorities were confronted with any adjudication displacing respondent
No.3's title. Any substantive challenge to the validity of the registered
instrument, if otherwise maintainable, would have to be adjudicated by the
competent civil forum. The summary proceedings under the Act were not
intended to determine complicated questions of title or finally adjudicate the
validity of competing family transactions.
39. The allegation that respondent No.4 is the real driving force
behind the proceedings also does not, by itself, establish abuse of the
statutory process. The record indicates that respondent No.3 personally
appeared before the Maintenance Tribunal and asserted his grievance. The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that respondent No.3 was
incapable of understanding the proceedings or that the orders were procured
without his consent. Merely because respondent No.4 may have assisted his
father in pursuing the proceedings cannot result in forfeiture of the statutory
protection available to respondent No.3. The grievance remains that of the
senior citizen, and the same has been considered by the authorities.
40. The argument regarding the financial independence of
respondent No.3 also requires to be considered in its proper perspective. The
Maintenance Tribunal itself noticed that respondent No.3 owned various
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 20-
properties in Chandigarh and neighbouring States and was drawing a
monthly pension of approximately Rs.60,000/-. It was for this reason that the
Tribunal declined to grant monetary maintenance at that stage. However, the
present proceedings are not confined to a claim for monetary maintenance
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. They also concern protection of life and
property under Chapter V. The statutory obligation to protect a senior citizen
from interference with his life and property cannot be made dependent upon
whether he is otherwise financially indigent or destitute. The existence of
independent income and other properties is a relevant circumstance while
assessing the nature and extent of relief, but it does not, by itself, extinguish
the right of a senior citizen to seek protection in respect of his own property.
41. The question, therefore, is not merely whether respondent No.3
has sufficient financial means or owns other properties, but whether the
limited directions issued by the authorities were necessary and proportionate
in the circumstances. The record indicates that respondent No.3 was the
absolute owner of the subject property but was residing outside it. The
relations between the parties were admittedly strained and various
complaints and proceedings had arisen between them. Respondent No.3
sought restoration of his ability to occupy his own residential premises and
protection against interference in his peaceful life and property. The
authorities were also confronted with the fact that the petitioner had no
independent proprietary right in the premises.
42. It is equally significant that the Maintenance Tribunal did not
direct the petitioner's eviction from the entire house. The order was carefully
moulded in view of the subsisting order dated 09.08.2023 passed in the
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 21-
2005, which protected the peaceful possession of Smt. Santosh Gulati on the
ground floor. The Tribunal permitted respondent No.3 to occupy only the
first and second floors and preserved the position of his wife on the ground
floor. The petitioner was also granted temporary permission to remain in part
of the ground floor during the period his mother required medical care. Thus,
the competing circumstances were taken into account and the directions were
restricted to the extent considered necessary.
43. The petitioner has projected himself as the person who had been
looking after his ailing mother and has relied upon the medical care provided
by him. The said circumstance was not ignored by the Maintenance
Tribunal. In fact, the limited permission granted to the petitioner to remain
on part of the ground floor was specifically intended to facilitate the care of
his mother. However, the fact that the petitioner may have discharged
responsibilities towards his mother does not, in itself, confer upon him any
proprietary right in the property belonging to respondent No.3. The limited
indulgence granted by the Tribunal cannot be converted into an independent
or perpetual right of occupation.
44. It is also necessary to notice that Smt. Santosh Gulati passed
away on 18.12.2025, after the Appellate Authority had decided the appeal on
27.11.2025 but before the order was dispatched on 31.12.2025. Her demise
is a subsequent event which has to be noticed while considering the
implementation of the conditional arrangement made by the Tribunal. The
permission granted to the petitioner to remain on part of the ground floor
was expressly linked to the medical needs of his mother and was never
intended to create an independent right of residence in his favour. Her
demise brings the factual basis for that temporary arrangement to an end. In
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 22-
case any dispute arises regarding the precise implementation of the direction
concerning the ground-floor portion, the parties would be at liberty to seek
appropriate clarification from the competent authority in accordance with
law. The subsequent event, however, does not affect the independent
entitlement of respondent No.3 to occupy the upper floors of his own
property or the protective directions issued in his favour.
45. The principles laid down in and
S. Vanitha (supra) Samtola
Devi (supra) have also been kept in view. Unlike a case where eviction is
ordered mechanically without examining the competing circumstances, the
present case involves an order restoring possession of the upper floors to the
undisputed owner, while preserving the ground-floor possession of his wife
under the subsisting judicial protection order and permitting the petitioner to
remain there temporarily for her medical care. The relief is thus confined in
its scope and is directed towards enabling respondent No.3 to occupy and
enjoy his own property without interference. The petitioner has not
demonstrated any independent legal right which would outweigh the senior
citizen's entitlement to such protection.
46. The contention that the proceedings are essentially a family
property dispute and, therefore, could not have been entertained under the
Act also cannot be accepted in the manner advanced. The existence of family
discord or parallel proceedings does not automatically exclude the
jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. What is material is whether the
senior citizen has approached the authorities with a genuine grievance
concerning his life or property and whether the relief granted is within the
statutory framework. In the present case, respondent No.3's ownership was
verified, he personally pursued the proceedings, and the relief granted was
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 23-
limited to restoration of possession of the upper floors and protection of his
life and property. The petitioner has not established that the proceedings
were wholly fictitious or that respondent No.3's grievance was merely a
device to settle a dispute between the two brothers.
47. It must also be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and
not appellate. This Court does not ordinarily substitute its own view for that
of the statutory authorities merely because another view may be possible.
Interference is warranted where the authorities have acted without
jurisdiction, ignored material evidence, violated the principles of natural
justice or returned findings which are perverse or wholly unsupported by the
record. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate
any such patent infirmity warranting interference with the concurrent
conclusions recorded by the authorities below.
48. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-
13) passed by respondent No.2 or in the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure
P-20) passed by respondent No.1, warranting interference in the exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
49. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The orders
dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-13) and 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-20) are
upheld, subject to the clarification regarding implementation of the
conditional arrangement concerning the ground-floor portion, as noticed
above.
50. The directions issued by the authorities below shall be given
effect to in accordance with law.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.3845 of 2026 (O&M) - 24-
51. The interim order dated 10.02.2026 stands vacated.
52. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH)

JUDGE
31.10.2026
SwarnjitS


Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.03 12:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document