Statutory Procedure Under Rule 22(3) Is Mandatory for Adjudicating Property Restoration Claims Under Senior Citizen Act

The petitioner (the younger son) challenged an order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, which affirmed a Maintenance Tribunal order dated 31.03.2022

Respondent No. 3 (the father) had transferred Rs. 7.15 crores to the petitioner from the sale of an immovable property in 2017, allegedly on the condition that the petitioner would care for his elderly parents

Upon the petitioner's alleged failure to maintain them, the father filed an application under Sections 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, seeking the return of the money

The Tribunal ordered the return of the funds and monthly maintenance

After a previous remand by the High Court, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, leading to the current writ petition

Section 2(f) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which defines "property" to include both movable and immovable assets, including money

Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which mandates that applications for eviction or protection of property must be filed before the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, involving a specific verification report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Rakhi Sharma v. State, establishing that the Divisional Commissioner, not the District Magistrate (acting as Appellate Authority under Section 16), is the proper appellate forum for property/eviction matters

The court reasoned that Rule 22(3) creates a distinct statutory framework for property disputes that is separate from Chapter II's maintenance provisions

While "maintenance" under Section 2(b) focuses on basic needs, disputes involving the restoration of property (like the Rs. 7.15 crores here) invoke Rule 22(3), which requires a three-tier process: factual verification by the SDM, adjudication by the DM/DC, and appeal to the Divisional Commissioner

The court found that the Maintenance Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by summarily ordering the return of a substantial monetary gift

The court distinguished Sunny Paul v. State, noting that although Rule 22 gives effect to Section 23 of the Act, the procedural safeguards of verification and the specific appellate hierarchy must be strictly followed when proprietary rights are at stake

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate for fresh consideration following the proper statutory verification process. The petitioner is ordered to continue paying Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance pendente lite. The writ petition was allowed