SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2018 SCC OnLine All 5644 : (2019) 2 RCR (Civil) 436 : (2019)
132 ALR 566 : (2019) 196 AIC 945

In the High Court of Allahabad

(BEFORE SUNITA AGARWAL , J.)

Om Prakash Manchanda … Petitioner;

Versus
D.M./Collector, Kanpur Nagar and Others …
Respondents.
Writ - C No. - 11748 of 2017
Decided on November 29, 2018, [Reserved on 12.9.2018]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner:— Dharmendra Pratap Singh C, Shesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent:— C.S.C., Nitin Sharma
The Order of the Court was delivered by
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.:— The present petition has been filed by Shri
Om Prakash Manchanda aged about 93 years son of Late Fakir Chand
Manchanda, Resident of B-22, 117/124A Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar seeking quashing of the order dated 21.6.2016 passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar on the application of the
petitioner as also the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by the District
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in an appeal filed by the petitioner. Further
prayer in the petition is to issue a direction commanding the said
respondents to compel the respondent no. 3 to refund a sum of Rs.
46,54,465/- along with interest to the petitioner and also to handover
the possession of the third floor of House No. 117/124A, Sarvodaya
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar to the petitioner forthwith.
2. The petitioner herein is a man aged about 93 years, father of
three sons namely Naresh Manchanda, Mahesh Manchanda and Raj
Manchanda and filed the present petition supported with the affidavit of
Raj Manchanda (one of his sons) with the grievances that his one son
namely Mahesh Manchanda (respondent no. 3 herein) is not refunding
Rs. 46 lakhs and odd, which was given to him as loan by the petitioner
for the soap business being run in the name of Sheetal Gramodyog
Sansthan. On the said loan amount, interest was payable to the
petitioner which was being credited in his account upto the year 2013.
The Sheetal Gramodyog Sansthan is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered with the U.P.
Khadi Gramodyog Board Ayog. It has been engaged in the business of
manufacturing soap to derive income for social and charitable purposes
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i.e. to help the downtrodden of the Society. The soap factory is being
run at Village Bhelamau, Bhaunti, Kanpur Nagar. The accounts of
Sheetal Gramodyog Sansthan is presently being managed by
respondent no. 3 as its Secretary. The respondent no. 3 had stopped
crediting interest in the account of the petitioner and started harassing
him, as such the notice dated 23.2.2015 was sent to respondent no. 3
asking him to vacate the premises in question. The respondent no. 3 is
living at the third floor of House No. 117/124A, Sarvodaya Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar which has been constructed on the Plot No. B-22 Block-
C, Scheme-I, Kakadev, Kanpur Nagar, which was jointly purchased by
the petitioner with his two brothers and his eldest son Naresh
Manchanda. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had
permitted his son namely respondent no. 3 to live at one floor of the
house in question but on account of harassment at his (his son) hands,
he (the petitioner) now requires vacant peaceful possession of the third
floor of the house which is his (the petitioner) exclusive ownership. The
application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
And Senior Citizens Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007’) was filed by the petitioner with the relief of refund
of the aforesaid money and to obtain vacant possession of his house.
The said application was illegally rejected vide order dated 21.6.2016
with the observation that the relief sought therein are not maintainable
being beyond the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007.
3. This order was further challenged in appeal filed under Section 17
of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which has been rejected by the
Collector, Kanpur Nagar. The Authorities under the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 found that a serious dispute is going on between the family
members and, as such, they may seek appropriate relief before the
Court concerned.
4. Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner vehemently contended that both the Statutory Authorities
have committed a grave error of law in rejecting the application and
appeal on the ground that the eviction of respondent no. 3 from the
house in question could not be ordered as the applicant did not claim
any maintenance from the respondent no. 3, his son.
5. Placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Misc. Bench
No. 11773 of 2014 (Majeedan v. State of U.P.) and Writ Petition No.
31851 of 2016 Janki Devi v. State of U.P.) and that of the Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 10463 of 2015 (Sunny Paul v. State NCT
of Delhi) and another judgment of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No. 10611 of 2018 (Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane), it is
vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Tribunal created
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

under Section 5 and the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section

15 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are empowered to pass appropriate
orders so as to evict the son or a relative from the property of the
senior citizen, who is/are residing against his (the father) wishes. It is
contended that the provisions as contained in Sections 21, 22 and 23
are enacted for the purpose of protection of not only the life but also
the property of a senior citizen. The petitioner being a man 93 years old
cannot be asked to go through the lengthy and complicated process of
civil suit so as to get vacant possession of his own house. The power of
the Tribunal established under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is wide
enough to take all measures so as to implement the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been
enacted with the objective to institutionalize a mechanism for
protection of life and property of senior citizen and to set up an
appropriate mechanism for providing needs/maintenance to parents
and senior citizens. Under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007,
the Tribunal can order for eviction of a son or a relative who is living in
the property owned by senior citizen, without his consent. This
provision has been enacted so as to ensure that every senior citizen
may peacefully live and enjoy the property owned by him. Both the
Tribunals had, therefore, illegally rejected the application terming it
beyond their jurisdiction conferred under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
6. Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, on
the other hand, placing various paragraphs of the counter affidavit
submits that the petitioner is owner of the disputed property along with
his two other brothers. The said property was acquired from joint family
funds but the name of Shri Naresh Manchanda had been included being
the eldest son. The petitioner is living at the second floor along with
Shri Naresh Manchanda, his elder son having common kitchen and
common areas such as drawing room and dinning room etc. The
respondent no. 3 is living at the third floor of the building. This
arrangement is in existence for more than 20 years. Because of the said
arrangement, the petitioner had also purchased two flats in Swaroop
th
Nagar Building No. 7/105-A, 8 Floor, Villa Apartments Shiv Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar from family funds for his third son namely Raj
Manchanda.
7. The family dispute arose because of the greed of his two brothers
namely Shri Naresh Manchanda and Raj Manchanda but in furtherance
of their evil design, distorted facts have been placed to negate the
genuine share and claim of respondent no. 3 i.e. the answering
respondent. Under the influence of his two sons, the petitioner also
started litigating with his real brothers and the answering respondent,
th
his third son. Shri Naresh Manchanda raised a dispute regarding 1/4
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shares of his uncle in the building saying that front portion must be
given to him. The preliminary decree of partition in Original Suit No.
2039 of 2007 filed by Shri Har Prakash Manchanda (brother of the
petitioner) has already been passed and a permanent injunction has
also been granted on 18.8.2012. The First Appeal No. 1023 of 2013 was
filed by the petitioner along with his another son wherein an interim
order was initially passed on 14.12.2012. As per the information of the
answering respondent no. 3, the said appeal has been dismissed for
want of prosecution.
8. Further, the dispute regarding partnership of M/s Manchanda
Enterprises a family business, is also going on. The petitioner alongwith
his two sons Naresh Manchanda and Raj Manchanda formed a new
partnership concern namely M/s Manchanda Agency using the entire
infrastructure of M/s Manchanda Enterprises whereunder they were
marketing the soaps manufactured from outside and tried to dispose of
the assets of M/s Manchanda Enterprises. As a result of it, respondent
no. 3 filed a case against his brothers and father namely the petitioner
namely Case No. 119/70 of 2014, Shri Mahesh Manchanda v. Raj
Manchanda, Manisha Manchanda wife of Shri Naresh Manchanda and
Shri Omprakash Manchanda (under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996) which is pending. It is further contended that
the petitioner is living peacefully with his elder son Naresh Manchanda
at the second floor of the disputed property and is having personal
driver, domestic staff/helpers and has also engaged part-time domestic
helper. Shri Naresh Manchanda further instituted Original Suit No. 989
of 2014 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent no. 3
namely Mahesh Manchanda. It is admitted to respondent no. 3 that he
is living at the third floor of the house and was inducted by the
petitioner being his father.
9. In the rejoinder affidavit of Raj Manchanda (one son if the
petitioner) filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the
allegation in the counter affidavit regarding any collusion between the
petitioner and his two sons is incorrect. The respondent no. 3 has no
share in the disputed property. The allegation that two sons had
inflicted any pressure on the petitioner for litigating with his third son is
a baseless allegation. The factum of litigation pending between the
parties is admitted. It is contended that the respondent no. 3 was
occupying third floor not in his own independent capacity but was
allowed by the petitioner to live therein. Now when the petitioner does
not want him to live in the said house, he has no option but to vacate
it. The assertion of the respondent no. 3 regarding the disputed
properties having been purchased out of the family funds, is highly
disputed.
10. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the papers pertaining to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the litigation pending between the parties have been brought on

record. It has also come up on record that a First Information Report
was lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner and his two
brothers whereafter they had to approach this Court to seek bail,
wherein this Court had stayed the non-bailable warrant issued to them.
11. From the facts noted above, it is evident that certain litigations
with regard to the business established by the petitioner alongwith his
two sons in the name of M/s Sheetal Gramudyog Sansthan are pending
before the Civil Court. A suit filed by Naresh Manchanda (one son of the
petitioner) seeking permanent injunction and declaration of transfer in
favour of his son regarding the plant, machinery and articles lying in
the rented factory premises, is also pending.
12. From the abovenoted facts, this much is evident that the parties
i.e. the petitioner alongwith his two sons Naresh Manchanda and Raj
Manchanda on one side and respondent no. 3 on the other side, are
litigating. The affidavit in support of the present petition and the
rejoinder affidavit had been filed by one of the sons of the petitioner
namely Raj Manchanda who is living separately in a House No. 7/106,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. There are rival allegations of mis-
appropriation of funds of the joint family business established by them.
The fact that the parties are litigating is evident on record but there is
no averment not even a whisper in the application filed under Section 5
of the Act, 2007 or in the present petition that respondent no. 3 i.e. the
son of petitioner had ever mis-behaved or ill-treated the petitioner.
There are no allegation of parental abuse whether mental or physical at
the hands of respondent no. 3.
13. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that the averments in
the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 and the appeal under Section 16 of the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 are that the soap manufacturing business
established in the name of M/s Sheetal Gramudyog Sansthan, a
Cooperative Society was established from the H.U.F. funds and the
funds of the applicant/petitioner but interest on the money given under
loan by the petitioner is not being paid by respondent no. 3 and, as
such, the applicant has no money to maintain himself. Further that the
third floor of the house in which the respondent no. 3 was living with
the permission of the petitioner, has not been vacated by him despite
repeated communications. The petitioner has been forced to live with
his eldest son on the second floor of the same building, which was
purchased jointly, in the name of the petitioner and his eldest son, and
other brothers of the petitioner.
14. From the said facts, it is evident that the family dispute is going
on in between the parties with regard to a business arrangement for
which initially, the respondent no. 3 filed the application under Section
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and later a suit has been
filed by Shri Naresh Manchanda with regard to the possession of the
factory premises and machinery. In the said scenario, it is to be seen as
to whether the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be
invoked to evict one of the sons of the petitioner/applicant from the
house which, according to the petitioner, has been purchased in his
name and the name of his eldest son.
15. This takes the Court to the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 so as to see the whole object and reasons of the same. The
statement of object and reasons of the Act as set out are that the
traditional norms and values of the Indian Society laid stress in
providing care for the elderly due to withering of the joint family
system, a large number of elderly are facing emotionally neglect and
lack of physical and mental support. Thus, ageing has become a major
social challenge and despite provisions of maintenance under the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973, it was deemed necessary to provide
simple, inexpensive and speedy mechanism to claim maintenance for
the parents. The bill proposes to cast obligation on the persons who
inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged
relatives and also proposes to make provisions for setting up of old-age
homes for providing maintenance to the indigent, older persons.
16. The preamble of the Act describes the same as an Act to provide
for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents
and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution
and for matters connected therewith and or incidental thereof. Section
3 of the Act gives it an overriding effect over any other enactment or
instrument which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Section 4 in Chapter II titled “Maintenance of Parents and Senior
Citizens” provides in sub-section (2) that the obligation of the children
or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to
the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may live a normal life.
Section 5 provides for making an application for maintenance under
Section 4, by a senior citizen, or if he is incapable, by any other person
or organisation authorised by him. The Tribunal may also take
cognizance suo motu. On receipt of such application for maintenance, a
notice is to be given to the children or relative and an enquiry is to be
held for determining the amount of maintenance, after giving the
parties an opportunity of hearing.
17. Section 7 provides for constitution of Maintenance Tribunal by
the State Government and Section 9 deals with the maximum
maintenance allowance which may be ordered by such Tribunal. Section
11 provides the power of the Tribunal to enforce its order of
maintenance. Section 15 provides for constitution of Appellate Tribunal
which shall be provided by an Officer not below the rank of District
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magistrate. The appeal against the order of Tribunal shall lie before the
Appellate Tribunal. The Maintenance Officer within the meaning of
Section 18 shall be designated by the State Government who shall
represent the parents or if he so desires during the proceedings of the
Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. Sections 19 and 20
deals with establishment of old age home, obligation of the State for
medical support for senior citizens.
18. Now comes the relevant Chapter V which deals with the
protection of life and property of a senior citizen. Section 21 mandates
that the State shall take all measures to ensure that the Act is given
wide publicity and there is effective coordination between the services
provided by the concerned Ministries and the Departments to address
the issues relating to the welfare of the senior citizens and periodical
review of the same. Section 22 provides that the State Government
may confer powers and impose duties on the District Magistrate, who
shall exercise all or any such power which is necessary for performance
of all or any of the duties, conferred or imposed upon them so as to
carry out the objects of the Act. Section 23 provides that any transfer of
property by a senior citizen to his children or a relative who shall
provide basic amenities and address the basic physical needs of the
senior citizen, if fails to do so, such a transfer shall be deemed a result
of fraud or coercion or undue influence and shall at the option of the
transferor be declared void by the Tribunal under the Act.
19. Under Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, framed under Section 32 of the Act,
the District Magistrate has been assigned powers and duties to ensure
that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and
that they are able to live life with security and dignity. The District
Magistrate has also been given powers to monitor that adequate and
timely payment of maintenance is provided to the senior citizens and to
ensure that the object and purpose of the Act is carried out.
20. Rule 22 provides that the District Superintendent of Police and
District Inspector of Police, as the case may be, shall take all necessary
steps to protect the life and property of the senior citizens.
21. Having regard to the objects of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
and intention of the legislature, the words “normal life” used in Section
4 would certainly mean a right to peacefully live in one's own property
and on being prevented from use thereof, the senior citizen would have
a right to recover the same so as to use it for any purpose including a
purpose to augment his income. The word ‘transfer’ cannot be
restricted to mean only actual transfer of title and ownership rather it
would also include possession of property for the term ‘transfer’
employed in Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The object of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is to provide simple, inexpensive and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

speedy remedy to the parents and senior citizens who are in distress,
by summary enquiry. The provisions have to be liberally construed as
the primary object is to give social justice to the parents and senior
citizens.
22. In the light of the said facts, the question came up for
consideration before the High Court of Kerala in C.K. Vasu v. The Circle
Inspector of Police in W.P. (C) 20850 of 2011, decided on 25.5.2012
wherein it was held that the order of Maintenance Tribunal restraining
the petitioner from interfering with his mother occupying the first floor
of the property or from recovering the rental income of the other two
floors of the property and further providing petitioner to maintain peace
in house and not to disturb his aged mother, were perfectly justified.
Emphasis was supplied to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in
Jayantram Vallabhdas Meswania v. Vallabhdas Govindram Meswania,
AIR 2013 Guj. 160, wherein it has been held that the question whether
the term ‘transfer’ in Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 should
be construed, having regard to the object of the Act and the provisions
under Section 2(b), 2(d), 2 (f) and 2 (h) and 4, so as to also include
possession of the property as well. It is noticed that sub-section (4) of
Section 4 provides that any person who would inherit the property
(which includes right or interest in such property) and is “in possession
of property” shall maintain such senior citizen which includes the needs
of such senior citizen to lead normal life. Having regard to the object of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and intention of the legislature, it was
held therein that there is no reason, justification or indication to restrict
the meaning and scope of the term ‘transfer’ so as to mean only actual
transfer of title and ownership and to exclude ‘possession of property’
from the purview of Section 23 or from the term transfer. It is held that
the said term cannot carry a very narrow and liberal meaning so as to
mean only actual transfer of title and ownership. The term transfer of
title under Section 23 should receive wide and liberal construction so as
to include an act of allowing possession and of/or occupation of
premises or part of premises to be taken into consideration. The
provision contemplates a situation that once transferor has right to
receive maintenance from such property then such transferor can
enforce the right to receive maintenance from the transferee. It has
been held that the provisions of Section 23 of the Act cannot be, and
need not be, read in isolation or by divorcing the said provision from
the other provision, particularly Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 read with Sections 2(b), 2(f), 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act. In the
facts of the said case, it was held that the respondent-son was not
entitled for property as he was not taking sufficient and proper care of
the respondent. The Competent Authority, therefore, having regard to
the relevant facts before it, has rightly directed the petitioner to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

handover the possession of the part of the property/premises which is

in his possession.
23. In Promil Tomar v. State of Haryana, (2014) 175 (1) PLR 94, the
application under Section 23 was found maintainable. It was held
therein that peaceful living of the senior citizen in his property is the
apparent objective of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The property in
dispute had been transferred and purchased in the name of the
petitioners after commencement of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It
was claimed that the purchase was with solemn assurance of the
petitioners that they will provide basic amenities and physical needs to
their parents. The parent claimed that the petitioners had started
torturing in every possible manner and as such the property was liable
to be reverted back to him and the matter shall fall within the purview
of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The continuance of the
petitioner in the house of respondent no. 5 was detrimental to his life
and liberty. There were several allegations of such acts of the
petitioners therein. It was, therefore, held that in view of the stained
relationship inter se parties, the directions could be issued to deliver
possession of house of the parent.
24. In Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (Retired) v. Union
Territory, Chandigarh, LPA No. 1007/2013, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court gave direction to the State Authorities to ensure shifting of
the petitioner's son from the residential house of his father. It was
observed by the Division Bench that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is
not restricted to only providing maintenance but cast obligation on the
persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain
such aged relatives. With the objective to achieve the purpose of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it had exercised power under Section 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue direction to vacate the house
belonging to the senior citizen.
25. In Sunny Paul (supra) taking note of the aforesaid judgments, it
was concluded that the Courts cannot left them helpless but shall assist
the senior citizens whose rights are protected under the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 because of any unreasonable stand of the son. The son and
his family members who were insisting to live with the father were
directed to vacate the property to the extent, it was occupied by them.
The right in the property, if any, can be claimed by the son by filing a
proper civil proceedings but in such case, no injunction can be granted.
It was, thus, held that even the permissible use amounts to transfer
and would contemplate the condition that son would not harm his
parents physically or mentally. It was found that since the Maintenance
Tribunal has found that the son had committed acts of physical assault
and mental cruelty on the parents, the pre-condition mentioned in
Section 23 stood satisfied. As in such eventuality, the power to declare
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a transfer of property void lies with the Tribunal. It was finally

concluded that in order to achieve the objectives of the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 so as to provide speedy relief to them against the threat
posed by their own children or any relative who would inherit his
property, under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the
Maintenance Tribunal is empowered to issue eviction order to ensure
that senior citizen live peacefully and son may not get any opportunity
to traumatize his parents physically or mentally. Unless the
consequential relief of eviction is granted, the purpose of the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 would not be achieved.
26. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 has been enacted in order to provide speedy remedy
to the aged parents as against the atrocities of their near and dear ones
including their children. If the parent is aged and old and incapacitated
to maintain himself/herself, the son or the relative may be held liable to
maintain his/her parent. The maintenance can be fixed by the Tribunal
after making a summary enquiry and effective measures can be taken
to ensure that the same is paid and the senior citizen gets sufficient
money to meet his daily need and medical expenses so that he may
live his life with dignity. Further, in case of any harassment by son or
relative living in the house of the senior citizen, who subject him (the
senior citizen) to mental cruelty or physical torture, he (the son or
relative of the senior citizen) would make himself liable to eviction
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007, despite the fact that
the property in which he is living has been transferred in his name by
such senior citizen. The reason being that the transfer made with the
condition to maintain the transferor shall be deemed to be void in case
of any such condition. The word ‘transfer’ used in Section 23 would not
only mean to include actual transfer rather it would be given a liberal
consideration so as to include the “transfer of possession” to son or
relative. The son or relative living in the property of the senior citizen
would be only a licensee who has been allowed to occupy the same out
of parental love. And such a licencee of the senior citizen would be
subjected to the proceedings under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 if a case of mental torture or physical assault is found.
27. In the said scenario, it cannot be said that applicant/petitioner
could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal
framed under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
28. However, in the instant case, none of the two conditions as
indicated in Section 23 of any complaint of physical or mental torture or
non-maintenance by the son living in the premises allegedly owned by
father is found existing. There is no whisper nor even a suggestion of
the petitioner that respondent no. 3 his son had committed any act of
physical assault on the petitioner or mentally tortured him in any
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

manner. No such averment has been made in the application or in the

memo of appeal or in the present petition. Only this much is stated that
the respondent no. 3 had pushed the applicant forcing him to live with
his another son at the second floor of the house. It is not stated by the
applicant that his second son namely Naresh Manchanda with whom he
is living is not maintaining him or he is finding it difficult to maintain
his day to day needs, while living with him.
29. From the records, it is evident that the parties are at
loggerheads and the petitioner is fighting against respondent no. 3 his
son with the help of his other two sons who are supporting him. The
prayer relating to refund of money is of a joint family business. As per
own admission of the petitioner, the said business was established from
the money of H.U.F. The respondent no. 3, on the other hand, also
claims that the properties purchased in the name of the petitioner i.e.
his father and two brothers namely Naresh Manchanda and Raj
Manchanda were from the joint family pool fund.
30. It appears that the application seeking eviction of one of the son
has been filed by the father, at the instigation of his other two sons
who are standing with him. From the records, it cannot be said that
respondent no. 3 has mis-behaved with his father or physically
assaulted him or caused any mental or physical torture. It does not
appear to be case of parental abuse. In view thereof, in absence of any
such averment in the application, this Court is of the view that the
requisite conditions for invoking powers under the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 do not exist in the instant case. The dispute appears to be a
family dispute where neither the District Magistrate nor Senior
Superintendent of Police would have authority to issue a mandatory
injunction assuming that the respondent no. 3 is in unauthorised
possession in a portion of the residential house in which, the
petitioner/applicant is also living.
31. The petitioner/applicant is living in the house in question with
his elder son and there is no partition amongst the family members.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, several triable
issues are to be formulated and adjudicated which are not within the
scope of summary enquiry within the scope of powers of the Tribunal
created within the meaning of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It, therefore,
appears that it would be appropriate that the parties may pursue the
pending litigations or may take recourse to such legal remedy, as is
available to them. The Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal
under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be said to have committed
any error of law in rejecting the application.
32. However, before parting with the judgment, it would be relevant
to record that the dismissal of the present petition would not give right
to respondent no. 3 to claim himself an owner of the third floor of the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Tejas Patel
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

house in which he is residing and to inflict any kind of abuse whether

physical or mental to his aged father rather he would be required to
take all possible steps to remove any misunderstanding between him
and his father. The parties may also take recourse of mediation so as to
settle their disputes out of the Court.
33. Lastly, it is observed that in case of any act of respondent no. 3
of parental abuse in future, in any manner, it would be open for the
petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In that eventuality, any observation made
hereinabove would not be of any significance. The Competent Authority
would be under obligation to take an independent decision in
accordance with law.
34. Subject to the above, the present petition is disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.