Full Judgment
Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 Date of decision : 05.08.2014 Gayatri Devi ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
Ms.Deepa Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
**** RITU BAHRI , J.
The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2013 (Anexure P-5).passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-President, Maintenance Tribunal- respondent No.2, whereby SHO concerned was directed to get released the property in question from the petitioner and hand over the same to respondent No.3.
Mahender Nath Mehta-respondent No.3 and his sons namely Rajesh Mehta and Achint Mehta, are owners of a plot measuring 581 Sq yards, comprising in KhaSr.No.20/12, situated within the revenue estate of village Baselwa, Tehsil and District Faridabad.
Gayatri Devi-petitioner is stated to be a tenant of respondent No.3.
The allegation is that the petitioner and Hoshiar Singh have contacts with notorious people AJAY PRASHERindulging in unlawful activities.
2014.08.20 14:35 In the month of March 2011, Gayatri I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 2 Devi-petitioner and Hoshiar Singh broke the gate pillars and boundary wall of the plot of respondent No.3 and tied few animals inside.
On 28.03.2011, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner at Police Chowki, Kheri Pul.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 was called to the Police Chowki by ASI Om Parkash and he was assured that the animals would be taken away from the plot within a few days.
Thereafter, she filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.3 alleging that she is a tenant since 1966.
However, her prayer for grant of interim injunction was declined by the Court.
Thereafter, her Advocate proposed to buy the said property at 60% price of the market value.
At that stage, respondent No.3 made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police.
On 05.05.2011 and 28.05.2011, respondent No.3 was harassed by some 'gundas'.
He made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner.
On his instructions, the SDM initiated action.
Thereafter, the accused were charged under Sections 365, 511, 448, 506 and 34 IPC on the initiative of the Deputy Commissioner.
In this background, an application was made under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
before the Maintenance Tribunal at Faridabad (Annexure P-3).On this application, the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-5) has been passed, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a civil suit (Annexure P-1).filed by the petitioner, is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division).Faridabad.
Respondent No.3 has also filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction (Anexure P-2).It is during the pendency of these two suits that the present application has AJAY PRASHER been made before the Maintenance Tribunal.
It has argued that this 2014.08.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 3 application could not be entertained by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has no power and authority to adjudicate upon the dispute, which is pending before the Civil Court at Faridabad.
Moreover, the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are not applicable on the petitioner, who is a tenant.
She has no relationship or duty to maintain respondent No.3, who is a senior citizen.
The object of the aforesaid Act is to protect the life and liberty of the senior citizens from their children ad relatives, as they have to inherit the properties of the senior citizens.
The petitioner is a private party and hence, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked against her.
In support of his arguments, he has referred to the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in case Sanjay Walia versus Sneha Walia and another, W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2010 (decided on 22.11.2013).Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has forcibly taken possession of the property in question.
After taking forcible possession of the property, she had rushed to the District Court, Faridabad in order to get an interim order in her favour in the suit for permanent injunction.
However, the Court did not grant interim injunction in her favour.
Thereafter, she along with four persons tried to abduct respondent No.3, who is an ex-Indian Navy Officer.
It was further stated that against the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-5).the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
The petitioner has, in fact, filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, whereupon a show cause notice (Annexure R-3/4) has been issued to respondent No.3.
As AJAY PRASHER per the said show cause notice, respondent No.3 has been directed to 2014.08.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 4 appear before the District Magistrate on 12.03.2013.
Respondent No.3 has annexed photographs and video transcript of mafia activities along with report of the District Social Welfare Officer as Annexures R-3/5 and R-3/6.
As per the report of the District Social Welfare Officer (Annexure R-3/6).respondent No.3 was residing in House No.436, Sector 14, Faridabad.
He is owner of the said house.
His plot i.e.plot No.3 is situated in Bharat Colony.
Gayatri Sharma-petitioner is taking illegal possession of this plot after breaking wall of the gate.
This fact was confirmed by the neighbouRs.regarding which, a police complaint was also registered, in which trial is going on.
Vide order dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-5).a direction was given to the police to evict the petitioner by 13.02.2013, however, till date the petitioner is in possession of the property in question.
Respondent No.3 has annexed the media report (Annexure R-3/7) regarding helplessness of the Civil Administration.
He has also placed on record copy of the judgment dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure R-3/8).whereby suit for permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
In the said judgment, a finding has been recorded that Gayatri Devi- petitioner has failed to prove that she was ever given the suit property on rent in the year 1996.
Further, respondent No.3 has placed on record copy of the order dated 07.05.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.01.2013, has been dismissed.
Head, counsel for the parties.
The case of complainant-respondent No.3 before the AJAY PRASHER Maintenance Tribunal was that he was owner of the plot in question 2014.08.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 5 along with his two sons and Gayatri Devi-petitioner has taken forcibly possession of the said plot.
Gayatri Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction, which has now been dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division).Faridabad.
The petitioner could not lead any evidence before the trial Court to show that the property in question had been given to her on rent by respondent No.3.
Neither any rent agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was produced nor any rent receipt receipt had been placed on record.
She failed to produce any documentary evidence to support her contention.
Neither any documentary evidence nor oral evidence was led in support of her contention that she was a tenant in the suit property since 1966.
One Sukh Ram had appeared as PW-1 and stated that the plaintiff-petitioner had been inducted as tenant.
But, subsequently, he could not appear for cross-examination.
Therefore, the evidence given by Sukh Ram (PW-1) could not be read into evidence.
Prior to this, petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 10.01.2013 before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 07.05.2013.
Main ground of appeal before the Appellate Authority was that the suit filed by the petitioner was pending before the Civil Court, whereby the petitioner was seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent No.3 from dispossessing her from the property in question.
Since, now respondent No.3 has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure R-3/8).the claim of the petitioner that she was inducted as tenant in the property in question, fails.
Moreover, while passing the order dated 07.05.2013 by the Appellate AJAY PRASHER Authority, reference has been given to the report give by the District 2014.08.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.4636 of 2013 6 Welfare Officer, Faridabad (Annexure R-3-6).whereby he has recorded a finding that after making necessary enquiries from the neighbouRs.it was found that Gayatri Sharma was taking illegal possession of the plot in question after breaking wall of the gate.
Finally, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on 07.05.2013.
In view of the judgment dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure R-3/8) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division).Faridabad and the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 (Anexure P-5).Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) 05.08.2014 JUDGE ajp AJAY PRASHER201408.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh