Read Time: 08 minutes

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow bench last week held that it is mandatory for the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. 

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed thus in view of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (the Act) and the rules framed by the state government thereunder. 

Court said, "Section 21 of the said Act provides for the measures to be taken by the State Government to ensure the well being of the senior citizen."

"Thus, the Act recognizes the vulnerable position of the senior citizen in the present society and intends to provide mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are secured and they are able to live in security and dignity", Court added. 

Court was dealing with a writ petition moved by a man and his wife challenging the eviction order passed against them by the Additional District Magistrate on an application moved by his mother.

The facts, in brief, were that the man and his wife were living in his mother's house and there were allegations of harassment from both sides. Man's wife had alleged that as she could not bear a child, therefore, her in-laws were mentally harassing her against which she had also filed a case under Section 147, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 

On the other hand, the man's mother had filed an application under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizen Act alleging that she was being harassed by her son and his wife. She had averred that after various such instances, she felt insecure and moved the application for eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from the house.

However, in view of the pleadings exchanged between the parties and a statement filed by the man's mother that she was ready and willing to offer a residence to her son and his wife over another plot, the Additional District Magistrate had passed the eviction order on the ground that within two years, the mother shall raise construction over the vacant plot and give the same to the son and his wife. 

The son and his wife challenged this eviction order contending that the Additional District Magistrate who passed the order had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizen Act.

In light of the submission made, the high court decided to examine whether the order passed impugned in the writ petition are justified or not.

Court said, "The act in question was framed with a view to provide for maintenance and welfare of the parents and the senior citizen which is directly recognized and guaranteed under the Constitution of India and all matters incidental thereto."

Court noted that the pleadings on record clearly demonstrate that the mother had justifiable apprehension to the threat or security in case the son and his wife are continued to stay in her house.

Further, Court stressed that the mother had offered to provide for alternative accommodation to the son and his wife despite there being no legal requirement to do so.

Therefore, Court held, "The order impugned also directs the eviction subject to the respondent no.2 (the mother) providing for alternative accommodation as offered by her with the construction raised thereupon within a period of two years. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned."

Accordingly, Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the son and his wife stating that it lacked merit. 

Case Title: Jeetu @ Amit Kumar Rawat And Anr. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lucknow And Anr.