Chattisgarh High Court

Neeraj Baghel vs The Collector on 6 January, 2023

                                      1

                                                                          AFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WP227 No. 109 of 2021

   • Neeraj Baghel S/o Shri Sevalal Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Qtr
     No. 45/36, Kasar Gali, Kamasipara, Satti Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh,

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

   1. The Collector Raipur, Collectorate Premises, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Sub Divisional Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. The Station House Officer Police Station Golbazar, Raipur, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   4. Sevalal Baghel S/o Late Shri Bahoran Baghel Aged About 73 Years R/o
      Qtr No. Lig- 261, Behind Surya Apartment, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil
      And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---- Respondent



For Petitioner         : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.4 : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.


                  Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

                             Order On Board

06/01/2023 :

   1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2021 passed by the Collector,

      Raipur in Case No.2/21 (between Neeraj Baghel Vs Sevalal Baghel)

      whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the house within a

      week under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

      Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth 'the Act, 2007') and also the
                                      2

   communication dated 29.1.2021 issued by the President, Maintenance

   Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (for short 'the

   Tribunal') in the case filed by respondent No.4 under Sections 5 and 32

   of the Act, 2007 being Case No.03/B-121, year 2019-20, the petitioner

   has preferred the instant writ petition.

2. Facts

of the case are that respondent No.4 has filed an application under

Sections 5 & 32 of the Act, 2007, inter alia, claiming maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner/son and also eviction from the house

No.39/74 situated at Kasaar Gali, Kamasipara, Sadar Bazar Ward,

Raipur, ad measuring 603 square feet, alleging that the said house is

proprietorship of respondent No.4. Since 2009 the petitioner and his

wife are continuously harassing and abusing respondent No.4-father in

the filthy language and threatened to oust from his own house and in the

month of July, 2017, ousted him from the house. For the said reason,

he is presently residing with his elder son. It has been further pleaded

that the petitioner is neglecting and refusing to maintain his father in

respect of food and treatment and also threatened to lodge an FIR if he

enters in his own house. It has been further averred that the

petitioner/son is working as In-charge Principal, Government School,

Gohrapadar, District Gariyaband and is getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per

month and is capable to maintain his father. Hence the application was

filed for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and also to

evict the petitioner from the house.

3. The petitioner/son has denied the allegations and stated that respondent

No.4 is a retired Government servant, who is retired from Food

Corporation of India (FCI) and is receiving pension. Therefore, he is

capable to maintain himself. It has further been averred that the

petitioner is residing with his mother, who is also a senior citizen in the

subject premises. The application has been filed only to harass the

petitioner and his mother, and civil suit is also pending adjudication

before the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-1, Raipur pertaining to the subject

property. It has also been averred that the respondent No.4 is having a

separate house at Santoshi Nagar in his name, through which he is also

getting rental income of Rs.10,000/- and also having agricultural land at

village Nakta, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. In the year 2016, respondent

No.4 had sold some agricultural land situated at village Sivni,

Abhanpur, for a consideration of Rs.6,54,000/- and the said money was

kept in his bank account.

4. The petitioner's mother has filed an application for maintenance against

his father before the family Court in which compromise was arrived at

on 13th July, 2019 and in the said settlement, both sons had agreed to

pay maintenance to the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner's family

is residing in the said house and he is posted at village Gohrapadar.

During festivals and while on leave, he used to come to meet and reside

with his mother and family. The father has moved such application

with ill motive. So, he prayed to dismiss the case.

5. Learned Tribunal after holding enquiry and being satisfied that the

petitioner is neglecting and refusing to maintain respondent No.4 and

also causing nuisance and harassing his father, passed the order dated

29.1.2021 directing to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and

also eviction order was passed. Against the said order, the

petitioner/son has preferred an appeal before the Collector, in which the

order was passed on 6.2.2021 directing the petitioner to vacate the

house within a week. Hence the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the Act, 2007

and the Chhattisgarh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules, 2009'), there is no such

enabling provision for eviction of son by the Maintenance Tribunal,

though such enabling provision was framed in some other states

specially in the State of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, for want of

enabling provision, the impugned order is not sustainable. He would

further submit that it is an admitted fact that the father/respondent No.4

is receiving pension from the FCI and is also having agricultural land

and separate house at Santoshi Nagar through which he is getting rental

income, therefore, the order granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- is also

not sustainable. In the alternative, he also submitted that the appellate

Court without examining the issue, has confirmed the eviction order in

a summary manner, which is not warranted. Therefore, the case may be

remitted back to be decided strictly on its own merits and the impugned

order of the Court below may be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would fairly submit

that respondent No.4 is getting pension from the FCI, so, he would

mainly press on the point of eviction of the house. He would place

reliance on the judgments in the matters of Pramod Ranjankar and

Another Vs. Arunashankar Pramod Rajankar & Others {ILR 2018

Chhattisgarh 1647}, Dinesh Kumar Swarnakar Vs. Amarnath

Swarnakar & Others {WPC No.3320/2017, decided on 2.9.2019 by

this Court}, Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs. Leelabai Shivaji Mane &

Others {2018 (6) MHLJ 681}, to submit that claim for eviction is

maintainable under Section 4 read with various other provisions of the

Act by the senior citizens against their children. He would further

submit that as per the object of the Act, 2007, the Tribunal or the

appellate Court, has also power to grant interim protection in view of

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat {AIR 1986 SC 984}.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

records.

9. As traditional norms and values of the Indian Society laid stress on

providing care of the elderly, so the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide for

more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and

senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and

for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said Act was

enacted principally to ameliorate deprivation caused to the parents by

the children. Due to declining of traditional norms, ethos and moral

values of the Indian Society which emphasized and recognized the

necessity to respect and provide care for the elderly had sadly receded

and robbed the society in recent times of such values for which such

legislation was necessitated.

10.In the matter of Pramod Ranjankar, (Supra), the interim application

filed by the parents seeking eviction has been allowed and the following

was observed at para-20:-

"20.Therefore interpreting in the line of the aforesaid facts it is not expected that after the damage is done to a senior citizen who is occupying some house with his son, the law will come to the rescue of the petitioners through the route of IPC. Therefore, the anxiety to stop the right of the abuse of senior citizen is to be made effective as otherwise it would be a symbolic collapse of the legal system by not responding to the request or by adhering to the dummy mode by Courts."

11.Further, in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Swarnakar, referred to

above, the following was observed at para-12 :-

"12. In the given case admittedly the petitioner was not the owner of the premises, wherein he is carrying on his business, therefore, it can be presumed that the business is being carried on with the permission of the parents i.e. the respondent. The permission has been long withdrawn, as such the petitioner cannot be asked to file a traditional suit of eviction by filing a civil suit as this cannot be ignored that the respondent has already attained the age of nearly 80 years and specially the Act is meant for benefit of senior citizens. Therefore, this Court as held earlier in CRMP No.600 of 2018 that anxiety to stop the right of the abuse of senior citizen is to be made effective as otherwise it would be a symbolic collapse of the legal system by not responding to the request or by adhering to the dummy mode by Courts. This Court further held that the object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to his parents and give support to the shivering hands. Likewise this cannot be forgotten that the children were protected during their childhood to become a competent adult. The object of

the Act, 2007 calls for a simple, speedy but limited relief and seeks to ensure that the parents are not shelved as a commodity or a good under the scrap/heap of society and allow the children to sail on their immorality for their own subsistence."

12.In the matter of Dattatrey Shivaji Mane (Supra), at para-22, it was

categorically observed that the provision of Section 4 of the Act permits

such application for eviction of child and grand child if the conditions

set out in that provision read with other provisions are satisfied, and the

submission that the order of eviction cannot be passed by the Tribunal

under Section 4 of the said Act read with other provisions of the Act,

2007, was turned down.

13.Reverting back to the facts of the present case and taking into

consideration the laudable object of the Act, 2007, which is required to

be interpreted in such a manner that mischief for which the Act has

been enacted is fulfilled. Therefore, the provision has been liberally

construed as primary object is to give social justice to the parents and