examined the contention as to whether the District Magistrate is competent
to order eviction of an unauthorized occupant in terms of the provisions of
the Act.
Section 22 falling in Chapter V of the Act enjoins a duty upon
State Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing
protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 32 (2) (f) also
empowers the State Government to frame Rules in respect of
comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of
senior citizens. In terms of such provisions, the Rules have been framed
which causes a duty on the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and
property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with a
sense of security and dignity. Apart from framing such Rules, the Action
Plan for protection of life and property of the senior citizens has been
published which inter alia provides for eviction of unauthorized occupants
as reproduced above.
The petitioner is a licensee living in the premises on the basis
of concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. As
a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy the possession of the
property licensed but without creating any interest in the property. A
licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of
termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee
to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, respondent
No.4 is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in
part of the property. Such property owned by respondent No.4 is required
to be protected as mandated by Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 23 of
the Rules and para 1 of the Action Plan. There cannot be any effective
protection of property of the senior citizens unless the District Magistrate
has the power to put the senior citizen into possession of the property
and/or to restrain or eject the person who wishes to interfere in the
possession of the property of the senior citizen. Protection of the property
of a senior citizen includes all incidences, rights and obligations in respect
of property in question. Once a senior citizen makes a complaint to
District Magistrate against his son to vacate the premises of which the son
is a licensee, such summary procedure will enure for the benefit of the
senior citizen. The petitioner would have no right to resist his eviction
only on the ground that the Act does not contemplate eviction of an
occupant. Eviction is one part of the right to protect the property of a
senior citizen which right could be exercised by a senior citizen in terms of
provisions of the statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified.
The argument that civil suit is pending regarding the rights of
the petitioner in the property in question; therefore, the order of District
Magistrate is not legal does not merit any acceptance. Suffice it to state
that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of all matters falling
within the jurisdiction of the Act in terms of Section 27 thereof. Since, the
protection of life and property falls within the jurisdiction of the District
Magistrate, therefore, the District Magistrate is competent authority to take
steps for the protection of life and property of the senior citizen.
However, we may say that such summary exercise of the
jurisdiction is without prejudice to the rights of the parties which may be
determined by the Civil Court in accordance with law.
The argument that the order of eviction was ex parte, passed
without giving any opportunity of hearing is misconceived. Admittedly,
the petitioner was served with a notice. The petitioner has not appeared
before the District Magistrate assuming the said day to be non-working
day. Once the petitioner was served and has chosen not to appear on the
given date and time, the consequences have to be suffered by the petitioner
alone.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.24508 of 2015(O&M)
Date of Decision: 1.12.2015
Gurpreet Singh
V
State of Punjab and others .
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR
