Bombay High Court
Subhash Madhav Yeole And Anr vs Prashant Subhash Yeole And Ors on 22 January, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-AS:3509 9WP11349-23.DOC
PVR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11349 OF 2023
Shri.Subhash Madhav Yeole & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
Shri. Prashant Subhash Yeole & Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Rutvi J. Solanki i/b. Shashank Shubham with Puneet Fonia, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for
the State.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATED: 22 JANUARY, 2024
_______________________
P.C.
1. The petitioners who are senior citizens had approached the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal (for short 'Senior Citizens
Tribunal') against their son with a grievance that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
harassing the petitioner in occupying the flat in question and in this situation
they had approached the Senior Citizens Tribunal with a prayer that
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to vacate the said premises as also with a
prayer for maintenance being provided to them by son.
2. Such complaint came to be filed before the Tribunal on 24 February
2021 which came to be decided in favour of the petitioners by a judgment and
Page 1 of 6
22 January, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2024 03:12:33 :::
9WP11349-23.DOC
order dated 6 June 2022 whereby respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to
vacate the flat as also to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month as
maintenance per month. The operative order passed by the tribunal reads thus:
"ORDER
1. The application of the Applicant is allowed on the basis of
sample analysis and the conclusion drawn in the result letter.
2. Mr. Prashant Subhash Yeole, Mrs. Jayshree Prashant Yeole,
where they lives in Flat No.201-2B, Plot No.50, Seawood Heritage
CHS, Sector-4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210 and remove all
furniture, electronic equipment belonging to them and being
prohibited from staying in the house. They are ordered to leave the
house immediately and not to cause any kind of trouble to the Plaintiff
under the provisions of Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007.
3. If the Respondent defaults in complying with this order, they
shall be liable to imprisonment of any description or to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month and to a fine which may
extend to file thousand rupees or to both under the provisions of
Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act,2007.
4. Also Mr. Prashant Subhash Yeole is to pay subsistence
allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this order.
5. If the Applicant or Respondent is aggrieved by this order, they
may file an appeal against the order before the Competent Tribunal
under the provisions of Section 16 of this Act.
6. According to the said order, if Applicant requests the co-
operation of the Police Department, the Police Department should co-
operate immediately.
7. Copies of this order should be sent to all concerned.
Dated:06/06/2022
Sd/-
(Rahul Mundke)
President, Senior Citizens' Settlement
Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Officer and
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Divisional
Panvel."
Page 2 of 6
22 January, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2024 03:12:33 :::
9WP11349-23.DOC
3. The petitioners contend that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have however
refused to comply with the orders passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal. It is
contended that neither respondent Nos.1 and 2 are vacating the premises nor
they are paying maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and directed by the
tribunal. In such circumstances, the petitioners have also filed an execution
application on 11 May 2023, which is stated to be pending and no cognizance
has been taken of the said application.
4. The case of the petitioners is that on the only ground that the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an appeal invoking Section 16 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007, neither the
execution proceedings are being taken forward in regard to the recovery of the
maintenance nor the tribunal is taking any action to get the premises vacated.
It is submitted that in fact the police authorities are also acting at the behest of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has
been filed.
5. We had heard learned Counsel for the parties on 19 January 2024 when
we passed the following order:-
"1. The Respondents are already served and Affidavit of Service is
on record, however, it appears that they are not interest to appear and
contest the same. Considering the nature of the prayers, we have
requested Ms. Vyas, learned Additional Government Pleader, to take
instructions as to the position of appropriate action being taken by the
concerned to implement the orders passed by the Senior Citizens
Welfare Tribunal. Let the appropriate report in that regard be placed on
record.
2. Stand over to 22nd January 2024 "HOB".
Page 3 of 6
22 January, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2024 03:12:33 :::
9WP11349-23.DOC
6. Even today respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not represented.
7. In pursuance of the said order, Ms. Vyas, learned Additional Govt.
Pleader has placed on record a communication received by her from the
Assistant Police Inspector, Kharghar Police Station, dated 22 January 2024 as
also a communication from the Sub-Divisional Officer / Presiding Officer of
the Senior Citizens Tribunal, Panvel in relation to the Execution proceeding.
Both the communications dated 22 January 2024 are taken on record and
marked "X-1" and "X-2" respectively, for identification.
8. The communication addressed by the Assistant Police Inspector states
that the action was intended to be taken by the police authority as per the
directions of the Senior Citizens Tribunal, however, there were certain reasons
given by respondent no.1 which are recorded in paragraph 3 of the
communication, hence, action could not be taken. It appears from paragraph 4
of the said communication that the concerned officer has expressed inability to
take action. We are not at all satisfied with this report of the Assistant Police
Inspector. The intention of the Police Officer appears to be clearly not to act
under the order passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal. There is no justifiable
reason whatsoever in the said report.
9. Insofar as the execution proceedings are concerned, a letter addressed by
the Presiding Officer of the Senior Citizens Tribunal to the learned
Government Pleader dated 22 January 2024 clearly states that as respondent
Page 4 of 6
22 January, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2024 03:12:33 :::
9WP11349-23.DOC
Nos.1 and 2 are in appeal, hence, awaiting the result in the proceedings of the
appeal, the execution application has not been taken forward. Even in regard to
this report, the explanation is far from satisfactory.
10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, as noted above, appears to be not interested to
contest the present proceedings. They have sufficient notice of the proceedings.
Infact, an e-mail communication addressed by Advocate for the petitioner has
been responded by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts, as contended by learned Counsel for the
petitioners, there is a serious doubt on whether the appeal filed by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 is itself maintainable under Section 16 of the Act. Apart from this,
there is no interim stay to the orders dated 6 June 2022 passed by the tribunal.
It is more than one and half years that the orders passed by the Senior Citizens
Tribunal are in subsisting and the same are not being implemented. This, in
our opinion, is causing a serious prejudice to the petitioners who are senior
citizens. In fact the very object and intention of the Act is being defeated in the
petitioners being deprived of the fruits of the orders passed by the Senior
Citizens Tribunal and without any warrant in law.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, certainly reliefs are required to be granted
to the petitioners who, in our opinion, are suffering despite the orders passed
by the tribunal on 6 June 2022. We accordingly, dispose of this petition by the
following order:-
Page 5 of 6
22 January, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2024 03:12:33 :::
9WP11349-23.DOC
ORDER
i. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to hand over the possession of the
flat to the petitioners within a period of ten days from the date a copy of this
order is served on them.
ii. In the event, respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not hand over the possession of
the flat to the petitioners, the orders of the tribunal shall be implemented in
letter and spirit in the manner as directed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal in
paragraph 6 of the order.
iii. The execution application, as filed by the petitioners as pending before
the tribunal, be decided within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of
this order is placed before the tribunal.
iv. All contentions of the parties on any pending proceedings, are expressly
kept open.
v. The appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 be taken up for adjudication
by the Appellate Authority and be decided within a period of six weeks from
today.
13. Learned Advocate for the petitioners shall communicate this order to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for compliance.
14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
22 January, 2024
