# Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 471
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 35884 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50678
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Piyush Pathak, R.P. Shukla, Sharad
Pathak, Sukhdeo Singh, Vidya Bhushan
Pandey

Held -
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4(3) &
16 - Eviction of son from parental house -
Jurisdiction
of
Tribunal
and
District
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate - Scope - Property owned by
father - Petitioner, son, residing in one
room with wife - No hindrance to peaceful
living of parents in rest of the house -
Father
now
deceased,
mother
in
possession - Eviction order passed without
considering
petitioner's
maintenance
obligations already being fulfilled - Order
suffers
from
illegality
and
without
application of judicial mind - Eviction
cannot
be
simplicitor
unless
senior
citizen's
"need"
under
the
Act
is
obstructed - Appellate order quashed -
Liberty to mother to apply afresh in case
of genuine hindrance.

Held: The Tribunal under Chapter - II of the
Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor. The
District Magistrate, as appellate authority, must
ensure no hindrance is caused to the peaceful
enjoyment of senior citizens in their property,
and eviction is warranted only as a last resort
when the "needs" of the senior citizen are
obstructed. In the present case, where the
petitioner - son is residing peacefully in one
room and not interfering with the mother's
possession,
the
appellate
order
directing
eviction was not sustainable.

Citations:

## Text

8 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
stated that Rs.5 lacs were not taken towards
compounding but in fact they were taken
towards the royalty and penalty for illegal
mining.

14. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that the
impugned order dated 25.1.2018 was passed
without any application of mind. Only
because the petitioner had deposited Rs.5 lacs
on 28.9.2017 it had been concluded that the
petitioner had done illegal mining. Further,
we find that the notice had stated that 5436
cubic meter of sand was excavated whereas
the order states that 4302 cubic meters were
illegally excavated. All this goes to show that
there was no application of mind. Still further
we find that there was neither any inspection
nor was there any report present on the basis
of which order was passed. Apart from the
fact that the order is based on no evidence,
we are also pained to find that Rs.5 lacs were
accepted from the petitioner without any
adjudication and without any quantification
of the penalty etc. This amount as per the
learned counsel for petitioner was paid by the
petitioner on the oral assurance that
compounding would be done but no specific
denial has been made in the counter affidavit.

15. The very fact that the money was
taken prior to the adjudication definitely
gives credence to the submission made by
learned counsel for petitioner that the Rs.5
lacs were taken by the department on an
assurance that compounding would be
done. This reflects a deplorable state of
affairs in the mining department.

16. For the reasons stated above, we
do consider that the impugned order dated
25.1.2018, which was followed by the
order dated 31.5.2018 cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law and therefore, they have
to be quashed. The subsequent notice dated
18.8.2018 is also being quashed. Before the
adjudication take place, we also direct that
the amount of Rs.5 lacs, which was taken
from the petitioner be returned to him and
interest be paid on that amount at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of deposit.

17. Needless to say that the
respondents may re-adjudicate the matter
on the basis of the reply given by the
petitioner within a period of one month
from the presentation of certified copy of
this order after taking into account
whatever local inspection etc. was done
before the notice dated 25.6.2017 was
issued.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 35884 of 2019

Krishna Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amol Kumar, Shivanshu Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Piyush Pathak, R.P. Shukla, Sharad
Pathak, Sukhdeo Singh, Vidya Bhushan
Pandey

Held -
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4(3) &
16 - Eviction of son from parental house -
Jurisdiction
of
Tribunal
and
District
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate - Scope - Property owned by
father - Petitioner, son, residing in one
room with wife - No hindrance to peaceful
living of parents in rest of the house -
Father
now
deceased,
mother
in
possession - Eviction order passed without
considering
petitioner's
maintenance
obligations already being fulfilled - Order
suffers
from
illegality
and
without
application of judicial mind - Eviction
cannot
be
simplicitor
unless
senior
citizen's
"need"
under
the
Act
is
obstructed - Appellate order quashed -
Liberty to mother to apply afresh in case
of genuine hindrance.

Held: The Tribunal under Chapter - II of the
Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor. The
District Magistrate, as appellate authority, must
ensure no hindrance is caused to the peaceful
enjoyment of senior citizens in their property,
and eviction is warranted only as a last resort
when the "needs" of the senior citizen are
obstructed. In the present case, where the
petitioner - son is residing peacefully in one
room and not interfering with the mother's
possession,
the
appellate
order
directing
eviction was not sustainable.

Citations:

1. Randhir Singh Vs District Magistrate, Faizabad
& ors., MANU/UP/1742/2019

2. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(b), 4(3),
5, 7(1), 16

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125

4. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amol Kumar,Advocate
assisted by Sri Shivanshu Mishra, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
Sri
Vidyabhushan Pandey , learned counsel for
the opposite party, Sri S.P.Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the impugned order dated 2211-2019 passed by the learned District
Magistrate, Sultanpur, vide appeal No.
1333 of 2019 and Computer Case No. D
2019046800133, titled as 'Kallumal and
another
Vs.
Krishna
Kumar',
while
exercising powers under section 16 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

3. The factual matrix of the case is
that on 16-07-1971, the grandfather of the
petitioner namely late Ramdhani purchased
a part of land of Gata No. 179 having area,
2 Biswa vide sale deed, from Ram Dulare
and Shiv Dulare, both sons of Jagrup, in
favour of the opposite party no. 4 and
thereafter, the rest part of the same Gata
admeasuring 2 Biswa was purchased by the
father of the petitioner on 17-07-1971, out
of the income of the Hindu Undivided
Family(HUF), in favour of his younger son,
who was minor at that period of time and
thus, the same was purchased under the
guardianship of his father. After purchase
of aforesaid land, the grandfather of the
petitioner constructed a house over the said
land with the earning of HUF and was
living in the same house. In between, the
younger brother of opposite party no. 4
expired and thus, the property owned by
late Om Prakash was divulged to opposite
party no. 4 and the children of opposite
party no. 4, in equal shares. The private
opposite parties have three sons and two
daughters namely Rajendra Prasad, Krishna
Kumar, Janardan, Sushila and Anjali. The
widow of Rajendra Prasad re-married after
the death of Rajendra Prasad and is living
with her husband,whereas the minor son
born out of the wedlock of Rajendra Prasad
and Savita Devi is residing with the
petitioner.
8 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473

4. On 16-08-2018, the petitioner
married with Rajpati in a Arya Samaj
Mandir who belongs to Scheduled Caste
Community and thus the father of the
petitioner was annoyed and never accepted
the marriage aforesaid. Due to annoyance,
an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner
so as to dissolve the marriage, whereafter,
the petitioner filed a case namely Writ
Petition no. 25345 (M/B) of 2018, (Smt.
Rajapati and another Vs. State of U.P. and
Others),wherein, an interim relief was
granted in their favour, though later on, the
same was disposed of.

5. The private-opposite parties filed
an application before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur under
section 125 of Cr.P.C., for grant of
maintenance against the petitioner and his
brother and the interim maintenance was
fixed @ Rs. 8,000/-p.m. and half of the
amount was to be given by the present
petitioner.

6. In the house in question, there was a
shop which was let out by the father of the
petitioner to Sadab & Izhar, on a monthly rent
of Rs. 26,500/-, but, the same was concealed
while instituting an application under section
125 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the private opposite
parties have also filed an application for
maintenance under section 7(1) of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act 2007 (hereinafter referred
as Act 2007),wherein the Sub. Divisional
Magistrate passed an order in favour of the
private opposite parties though, the same was
not challenged by the petitioner and the
petitioner
is
paying
the
amount
of
maintenance to his parents on each and
every month.

7. Thereafter, an appeal has been filed
before the District Magistrate on 14-122017, whereby the petitioner has been
directed to evict the house. The private
opposite parties vide sale deed dated 14-122017, sold out a part of the property of
Gata No. 179 and being aggrieved, the
petitioner filed a civil suit to declare him to
be co-sharer of 1/6 share in the land in
question, which is registered as Regular
Suit No. 140 of 2019, (Krishna Kumar and
Another Vs Kallu Mal and Others).

8. On 13-03-2019, the father of the
petitioner, executed gift deed of the property
to Sushila and Anjali, who are the daughters
of the executor and sisters of the petitioner
and the rest of the property was sold out in
favour of one Suresh Narotam Das and being
aggrieved, another suit was filed by the
petitioner alongwith minor son, for setting
aside the gift deed dated 08-02-2019 and the
sale deed dated 13-03-2019, vide Regular
Suit No. 944 of 2019. The present petitioner
is still residing in one portion of the house,
but, the Sub. Divisional Magistrate and the
Appellate Authority without application of
judicial mind and without considering the
evidences in a right perspective, passed the
impugned order, thereby directing the
petitioner to evict the house in question.
Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved, has filed
the instant petition.

9. Contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that admittedly, the present
petitioner is son of the private opposite
parties and even assuming that the property in
question is the property of private opposite
parties, the present petitioner being son is
entitled for 1/6 part of the property and
therefore, without considering all these facts,
the order for eviction has been passed while
exercising power under Act 2007.

10. He argued that learned District
Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction,
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while deciding the appeal, thereby passing
an order of eviction and dispossession. He
emphasized that Section 2(b) of the Act,
2007,which includes provision for food,
clothing, residence and medical attendance
and treatment, has never been denied by the
petitioner to his parents, at any point of
time. He next added that the appellate court
has also failed to appreciate that the
property which is owned by the father of
the petitioner is an ancestral property.

11. Further contention is that under
the proceedings of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
the maintenance has already been fixed by
the court, as an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per
month out of which, Rs. 4,000/-per month
is to be paid by the petitioner and there is
also income of Rs. 26,500/- per month to
opposite parties from a shop, which was let
out by the father of the petitioner.

12. Submission is that in fact the story
is otherwise as the father of the petitioner was
annoyed with the marriage of the petitioner
and his wife, as wife belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community, which is infact root cause
of initiating legal proceedings against the
petitioner for evicting him from the house in
question and to dislodge the marriage in
between the petitioner and his wife. He
submits that the petitioner is taking all care of
his parents, on each and every occasion prior
to the marriage and due to annoyance of his
father,several cases have been lodged against
him and he is running pillar to post for doing
pairavi.

13. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on a case reported in
Manu/UP/1742/2019, Randhir Singh Vs.
District Magistrate, Faizabad and Others
and has referred paragraphs nos. 24,28 &
29 of the aforesaid Judgment, which are
extracted hereinunder :-

"24.The question is whether the
respondent no. 3, who is daughter-in-law of
the petitioner, has a right to reside in the
house, which is self-acquired property of
the petitioner against the wishes of the
petitioner, in view of the provisions of the
aforesaid 2017 Act read with Uttar Pradesh
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Rules, 2014(hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules of 2014")

28. While passing the impugned
order, the District Magistrate has gone
through the enquiry report submitted by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on finding
that the petitioner inspite of having five
rooms in the house, is living with his elder
daughter-in-law on his own sweet will; the
matrimonial dispute between petitioner's
son and respondent no. 3 is pending; and
the petitioner has not produced any
evidence which could establish that the
respondent No. 3 has restrained the
petitioner from living in other five rooms of
the house in question. In the backdrop of
the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate
has recorded specific findings of fact on the
basis of cogent material on record and the
judgment relied by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner is not applicable under the
facts and circumstances of the case.

29. From the perusal of the
impugned order, it reflects that the District
Magistrate, on the basis of enquiry report
submitted
by
the
Sub.Divisional
Magistrate, has recorded specific finding
that there is no evidence on record, which
establishes that the respondent No. 3 is
trying to restrain the petitioner from living
in other five rooms of the house in question.
In fact the petitioner is residing with his
elder daughter-in-law on his own sweet will
at Faizabad. In order to protect the interest
of the petitioner being a senior citizen, the
District Magistrate in its order has
specifically directed the concerned police
8 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
station to see both the parties from time-totime and it is also expected from the parties
that they live in congenial atmosphere
without interfering in the peaceful life of
each other."

14. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that the Division Bench of this
court has held that since the senior citizen,
leaving
their
house,
were
residing
somewhere else whereas there was space to
live and none had restrained them to live in
the
house,
thus,
no
interference
is
warranted. He submits that the case of the
petitioner is also covered with the ratio of
the above said judgment as he is residing in
one room of the house and he has never
restrained his parents to live over there.

15. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that this is a peculiar case where the
parents are not infact aggrieved but the son is
being harassed for his no fault. He submits that
the father of the petitioner namely Kallu Mal
died and now the greedy sisters and their
husbands are trying to sell out the property and
that's why, they are doing pairavi in the matter,
yet the petitioner and his wife is residing in
one portion of the house, which is on the first
floor and one of the shops, beneath his room,
which is under his possession and the rest of
the house is in the possession of the private
opposite parties. He added that it is not the
intent of the act to dislodge or to harass the son
but it is for protection of the interest of the old
age parents, which infact, in the present case is
not applicable. He thus, submits that the
private opposite parties did not come with
clean hands before the appellate authority as
well as before the Sub. Divisional Magistrate
and thus, the impugned orders assail illegality
and infirmity.

16.

Per
contra,learned
counsel
appearing for the opposite parties has
opposed the contentions aforesaid and
submits that no substantial or legal ground
has been divulged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and only factual dispute
has been raised. He added that the father of
the petitioner namely, Kallu Mall was aged
about 75 years and his mother namely,
Samtula Devi, was about 68 years of age at
the time of the alleged incident and now,
Kallu Mall is no more. Further submitted
that the petitioner and his wife beat his
parents brutally and abused them and
because of the unbearable harassment
perpetrated by the petitioner and his wife,
the father and mother, who were of old age
and sick and infirm, felt helplessness and
pain. He added that facing the trouble at
every point of time, the father of the
petitioner and the mother moved an
application before the Sub. Divisional
Magistrate, which was decided vide order
dated 08-07-2019 and thereafter, an appeal
was instituted wherein an order was passed
on 22-11-2019. The operative portion of the
order
dated
22-11-2019
is
quoted
hereinunder :-

आदेश

"उपरोक्त त्रववेचना के आधार पर प्रस्तुत अपील
स्वीकार की जाती है। न्यायालय माता त्रपता एवं वररष्ठ नागररक भरण
पोर्ण एवं कल्याण अत्रधकरण/उपत्रजलात्रधकारी सदर सुलतानपुर
द्वारा पाररत आदेश त्रदनांक 08.07.2019 खत्रण्डत त्रकया जाता है
तथा त्रवपक्षी कृष्ट्ण कुमार को उपरोक्त सम्पत्रत्त (मकान व दूकान) से
त्रनष्ट्कात्रसत त्रकया जाता है। त्रवपक्षी आदेश प्रात्रप्त से 45 त्रदवस के
भीतर उक्त सम्पत्रत्त से अपना कब्जा हटा लें यत्रद उनके द्वारा त्रनधााररत
समयावत्रध के भीतर अपना कब्जा नहीं हटाया जाता है तो स्थानीय
पुत्रलस बल की सहायता से उन्हें उक्त सम्पत्रत्त से त्रनष्ट्कात्रसत करने की
कायावाही की जाय। आदेश की एक प्रत्रत पुत्रलस अधीक्षक
सुलतानपुर, उप त्रजला मत्रजस्रेट सदर सुलतानपुर व संबंत्रधत पक्षों
को आवश्यक कायावाही हेतु प्रेत्रर्त की जाय। प्रभारी त्रनरीक्षक
कोतवाली नगर, सुलतानपुर उभयपक्षों पर आदेश का तामीला
कराकर एक प्रत्रत तामीला ररपोटा के साथ वापस करें। आदेश की प्रत्रत
के साथ अवर न्यायालय की पिावली वापस भेजी जाय। बाद
आवश्यक कायावाही पिावली संत्रचत अत्रभलेखागार हो।
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

त्रदनांक-22.11.19"

17. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that there is no errorneousness in
the order passed by the appellate authority
and considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and the law prevailing thereof,
the order with respect to eviction of the
petitioner has rightly been passed.

18. He further submits that so far as
the claim of the petitioner is that he is a cosharer of the House No. 778, from which
eviction has been ordered by the learned
District Magistrate, is infact not correct as
the petitioner does not come in the category
of co-sharer as per section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act. With the intention to claim
his right as co-sharer, the petitioner made
several kind of forgery and once he could
not succeed, then he prepared a forged will
deed executed by late Om Prakash in the
year 1992. He added that the petitioner
committed all kind of forgery so as to
remain continue in the house of his
father,but, he could not substantiate the
same. It is also added that the petitioner is a
person of criminal character and has got no
respect to his parents and more so, he
misbehaved with them in course of
grabbing the property and once, it became
impossible to live with the petitioner
namely, Krishna Kumar and his wife, the
proceedings under Act,2007 were invoked
by the opposite parties, whereupon the
opposite parties have rightly passed the
orders. He also added that the petitioner has
beaten several times to his father and
mother and they have received injuries,
which is also evident from the CCTV
Camera installed.

19. Further submission is that learned
trial courts have passed the orders impugned
after thoroughly considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and after coming to
the conclusion that the opposite parties no. 4
& 5, are being ill treated by his son i.e. the
petitioner and his wife and it has become
impossible for the parents to live, in the same
house, alongwith them. He added that there is
no unlawfulness and errorneousness in the
order
passed
by
the
Sub.Divisional
Magistrate or the appellate court. Therefore,
he submits that there is no merit in the instant
petition and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

20. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of material placed on record, it
emerges that the present petitioner and his
wife are living in the house of his parents.
From the application, which was instituted by
the opposite parties no.4 & 5, it is evident that
the present petitioner used to beat his father
and mother, who were of old age and he was
also not properly maintaining them. Further
this incident is said to happen usually with
opposite parties no. 4 & 5 and therefore,
being aggrieved, they moved an application
under section 5 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act,2007(hereinafter
referred
as
the
'Act,2007'). After the aforesaid application
moved, the Sub. Divisional Magistrate
concerned passed the order on 08-07-2019
with the following directions :-

आदेश

"आदेश त्रकया जाता है त्रकः-

(1) प्रत्रतवादी कृष्ट्ण कुमार सुत कल्लूमल को त्रनम्न
शतों के साथ प्रत्रतबंत्रधत त्रकया जाता है त्रक कृष्ट्ण कुमार सुत
कल्लूमल त्रजस दुकान में बतान का कारोबार करते हैं एवं त्रजस कमरे
में रहते हैं एवं कमरे से लगे बाथरूम के अत्रतररक्त घर के दूसरे त्रहस्से
में त्रबना माता त्रपता की अनुमत्रत के प्रवेश नहीं करेंगे। यह प्रत्रतबन्ध
इनकी पत्नी एवं बछचों पर भी प्रभावी होगा।

(2) प्रभारी त्रनरीक्षक कोतवाली नगर को आदेत्रशत
त्रकया जाता है त्रक प्रत्येक 15 त्रदन में स्वयं अथवा क्षेिीय
8 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
477
उपत्रनरीक्षक इनके घर पर जाकर सी०सी०टी०वी० में लगी हाडा
त्रडस्क/डी०वी०आर० का परीक्षण करेंगे एवं पड़ोत्रसयों से पूूँि तॉि
करेंगे त्रक इनके पुि कृष्ट्ण कुमार के द्वारा अपने माता त्रपता को
प्रतात्रड़त तो नहीं त्रकया जा रहा है। यत्रद कोई ऐसा साक्ष्य प्राप्त होता है
तो न्यायालय के संज्ञान में लाते हुए आवश्यक कायावाही करेंगे।

(3) कृष्ट्ण कुमार द्वारा अपने माता त्रपता को प्रतात्रड़त
त्रकया गया तो इन्हें घर से बेदखल करने की कायावाही की जायेगी।
जैसा त्रक त्रवपक्षी कृष्ट्ण कुमार ने अपने बयान में स्वयं अंत्रकत कराया
है।

(4) माननीय प्रधान न्यायाधीश कुटुम्ब न्यायालय
सुल्तानपुर के आदेश का अनुपालन करते हुए कृष्ट्ण कुमार व जनादान
कुमार सुतगण कल्लूमल प्रत्येक माह अपने माता त्रपता को भरण
पोर्ण हेतु माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा त्रनधााररत भरण पोर्ण की
धनरात्रश देते रहेंगे।

(5) कृष्ट्ण कुमार एवं इनकी पत्नी एवं बछचों के द्वारा
माता त्रपता का पूणारूपेण आदर एवं सम्मान त्रकया जायेगा।

(6) प्रभारी त्रनरीक्षक कोतवाली नगर सुलतानपुर को
इस त्रनदेश के साथ त्रक श्री कृष्ट्ण कुमार सुत कल्लूमल पर सतका दृत्रि
बनाये रखेंगे त्रक वह अपने माता त्रपता को प्रतात्रड़त न करें। आदेश
की एक प्रत्रत प्रभारी त्रनरीक्षक कोतवाली नगर सुलतानपुर को
अनुपालनाथा भेजी जाय।

बाद आवश्यक कायावाही पिावली दात्रखल दफ्तर
हो।"

21. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 08-07-2019, an appeal was instituted
by the opposite parties no. 4 & 5, wherein
the appellate court admitted the appeal and
set aside the order passed by the Sub.
Divisional
Magistrate
directing
the
petitioner to evict the house of opposite
parties no. 4 & 5 within a period of 45 days
from the date of the order received and in
case of non eviction, it was also directed
that the same shall get evicted forcibly with
the help of the local police.

22. It has been stated in so many words
by the petitioner that he is living in a room
and there is one shop in his possession and
the rest of the part of the house is in the
possession of his mother and sister. It was
also submitted that since the petitioner
performed marriage with a lady of Scheduled
Caste and being annoyed, the parents started
the proceedings for getting evicted the house
of the opposite parties no. 4 & 5 and no
cruelty or injury has ever been caused by the
petitioner or his wife.

23. Before any discussions or coming to
the conclusion in this matter, it is essential to
look into the object of promulgating the Act,
2007.
The
Act,
2007,
namely
the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Bill,2007 was introduced in
Lok Sabha on 20-03-2007 and the objective
of Bill was to provide for more effective
provisions for the maintenance and welfare of
parents and the senior citizens guaranteed and
recognized under the Constitution of India
and for the matters connected therewith or the
incidental thereto. It is for the maintenance of
the parents, and to provide appropriate
mechanism,
which
is
need
based
maintenance to the parents and senior citizens
including the medical facilities to the senior
citizens and institutionalizing a suitable
mechanism for the protection of life and
property of the older persons and old age
homes in every district. Now-a-days, because
of steady rise in the population, the older
persons in India are used to see suffering with
the
malnutrition
and
unavailability
of
medicines and treatment which expected to
decrease the life expectancy. The traditional
norms and values of the Indian society lays
stress on showing respect and providing care
for the aged members of the family, were
normally cared for by the family itself, but, in
the recent time, the society is witnessing a
gradual definite withering of joint family
system and therefore, a large number of
parents are not being maintained by their
children.

24. It is an established fact that the
family is the most desired environment for
senior citizens/parents to lead a life of
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
security, care and dignity and keeping in
view of this fact and to ensure that the
children
should
perform
their
moral
obligation towards their parents, the Act,
2007 aims to create an enabling mechanism
for the older persons 'To Claim Need
Based Maintenance From Their Children'.

25. So far as the definition of
maintenance is concerned, that has been
envisaged under section 2(b) of the Act,
2007. This says that the maintenance
includes the provisions for food, clothing,
residence and medical attendant and
treatment. If it is seen in context with the
present case, it is evident that opposite
parties no. 4 & 5 are the house owners,
wherein their son and daughter-in-law are
residing in a room and one shop is also in
their possession, which is source of their
livelihood. Though, it has been alleged as a
factual matter that the house in question has
been sold out, on the instigation of the
sisters and brother-in-laws of the petitioner,
but, without going into this factual dispute,
it remains undisputed that the present
petitioner is residing in a room. It is also a
fact that at this stage, the opposite party no.
4 i.e. the father of the present petitioner
died and only the opposite party no. 5 i.e.
the mother of the petitioner is alive. While
bare reading of Section 4(3) of the Act,
2007, it is evident that the obligation of the
children to maintain his/her parents extends
to the needs of such parents either father or
mother or both, so that they may lead a
normal life. Section 4(3) of the Act,2007 is
quoted hereinunder :-

"4.(3) The obligation of the
children to maintain his or her parent
extends to the needs of such parent either
father or mother or both, as the case may
be, so that such parent may lead a normal
life."

26. The explanation and meaning of
Section 4(3) of the Act, 2007, can more
particularly be derived from the heading
that says 'maintenance of parents and
senior citizens', meaning thereby that the
maintenance of parents and senior citizens
so far as they can lead a normal life by
extending to the needs well fulfilled. Such
maintenance of parents is objective of this
Act. The present petitioner is residing in a
room and one more shop is in his
possession and the rest of the house is in
possession of his late father now the
mother, then this could not be said that
there is any further need regarding
residence/house to the parents of the
present petitioner and more particularly,
when the father is no more and being the
son, he is residing in one of the room and
the mother is residing with her daughters.

27. Taking note of the fact that as per
the
social
structure
of
the
society,
sometimes, a son may not be in a position
to maintain the parents, as particularly, in
the present matter, the petitioner is residing
in one room and there are other rooms,
where the other can live, therefore, it is
needed to revisit the whole scenario that as
to whether the present petitioner, is actually
avoiding to maintain the parents.

28. This court has also noticed the
fact as was contended during course of the
arguments that the sister of the petitioner is
colluded with the mother and she is trying
to sell out the property in question as that is
the valuable property and therefore, they
tried to oust the present petitioner and the
hurdle is that once he remains in one room
of the said house, no one will purchase the
same.

29. Further, this court is of considered
opinion that a Tribunal, under Chapter-II of
8 All. M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors.
479
Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor
from the property at the instance of senior
citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the
children and relatives to make available a
residence to such senior citizens in
pursuance of an application, filed under the
abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that
the District Magistrate as an appellate
authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure
that no one should make any hindrance to a
senior citizen to enjoy the property as per
his 'need' and the right to eviction is the
last step, where such authority finds that
the need of a senior citizen is not being
fulfilled. The case in hands is that the
present petitioner is living in one room with
his wife and he is not making any
hindrance in the peaceful living of the
parents, in other part of the house and
therefore, so far as the objective of the Act,
2007 is concerned, is no way hampered by
the petitioner.

30. Further the procedure of eviction
is not at par to the procedure as prescribed
in the Civil Procedure Code, where the
rights and titles are determined, as the
provisions of Act,2007 is for ensuring the
needs of the senior citizens and that is to be
handled, carefully, so that the structure of
the family may not be abrupted.

31. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, the order
passed by the appellate authority, so far as
the eviction of the present petitioner is
concerned, is not sustainable, in the eyes of
law.

32. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 22-11-2019 passed in Appeal No.
1333 of 2019, is hereby quashed.

33. Liberty is given to opposite party
no. 5, (mother of the petitioner), to move an
appropriate application, if any sort of
hindrance is been made, in furtherance to
the need of her residence.

34. The petitioner is also directed, not
to make any inconvenience in the needful
living of the opposite party no. 5, in the
house in question.

35. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant petition is hereby disposed of.

36. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 479
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 1001013 of 1996

M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K. Kalia, Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa, Shobhit
Mohan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.M.K. Chaudhary

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 283A, Rule 285-A, Rule 285-I & Rule
285-J , The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section5 - delay condonation - Proceedings
before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I
of the Rules, 1952 is judicial proceeding -
application under Section 5 of the Act,
1963 is maintainable for condoning the
delay in filing the objection - if any
objection under Section-285-I of the