Bhaskar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 3908 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhaskar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 April, 2026

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     236


                                              LPA-801-2021 (O&M)
                                              Decided on : 28.04.2026



                     BHASKAR AND ANOTHER
                                                                                    ...Appellants

                                                        Versus

                      STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                                              . . . Respondents


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA


                     PRESENT: Mr. Jagmohan Ghuman, Senior Advocate with
                              Mr. Naveen Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.

                                  Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

                                  Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                  ****


                     HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment dated

02.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition bearing

CWP No. 32298 of 2018, filed by the petitioners (appellants herein)

challenging the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the authorities concerned

under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

(hereinafter referred to as the "2007 Act") directing their eviction, has been

dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a

family settlement (panchayati agreement) took place on 03.02.2017, under

which, it was decided that the house in question would be transferred in

favour of the appellants by way of a gift deed. However, since no such

transfer was effected, the appellants cannot now be directed to vacate the said

premises.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that they have

no alternative accommodation to reside, which fact has been ignored by the

learned Single Judge while upholding the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by

the authorities concerned exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-senior citizens submits that,

at present, the respondents-senior citizens are on the road and are unable to

reside in their own house, which is owned by them, as the appellants are

occupying the same. Learned counsel for the respondents-Senior citizens

further submits that since the property in question belongs to the senior

citizens and they are unable to utilize the same, hence, the provisions of

2007 Act invoked by the Senior citizens have rightly been appreciated by the

all the authorities including the learned Single Judge and therefore, the

present appeal may kindly be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file with their able assistance.

6. As per the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024 titled Urmila

Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others, decided on 02.01.2025, and

reiterated in subsequent judgments, eviction is an inherent remedy under the

RIYA 2007 Act and can be sought by senior citizens. Learned counsel for the

appellants has not been able to dispute this settled proposition of law.

7. Further, under the 2007 Act, once senior citizens owned a

property, they have a full right to reside therein with dignity. In the present

case, the house occupied by the appellants belongs to the senior citizens,

whereas the senior citizens themselves are living in rented accommodation,

which is contrary to the spirit and provisions of the 2007 Act. As the

ownership of the house by the senior citizens is not in dispute, they have a

preferential right to reside therein.

8. Hence, the order passed by the competent authorities, directing

eviction of the appellants and permitting the senior citizens to occupy their

own property, is valid and in consonance with the provisions of the 2007 Act.

9.. Keeping in view the above as well as the settled principle of

law, the appellants are directed to vacate the house in question and hand over

the keys of the said premises to the senior citizens immediately.

10. The present appeal is dismissed in above terms.

11 At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions

from the appellants who are present in Court, submits that they may be

granted time to vacate the house in question upto 31.05.2026. Learned

counsel for the appellants further submits that as the respondents-senior

citizens are residing in rented accommodation, the appellants will pay a rent

of Rs.5,000/- for the month of May 2026 to the senior citizens by 07.05.2026.

12. In case the said condition of paying the rent to the respondents-

senior citizens is not complied with by the appellants by 07.05.2026, the

respondent-senior citizens will be at liberty to get the premises vacated with

the help of police immediately after 07.05.2026. Otherwise, the appellants

RIYA will hand over vacant possession of the house in question to the respondents-

Senior Citizens by 31.05.2026.

13. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) JUDGE 28.04.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No