✦ High Court of India · 10 Feb 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Feb 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

10 Feb 2025

Bench

JUNIOR CIVIL

Length

2,515 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure §151 Constitution of India

...RESPONDENTS Pelition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wrir, order or direction more partacurarry one in the nature of writ of I\'4andamus decraring the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing an order dated 16-04-2024 in Appear No.sl/480/2024 uphording the order dated 20-02- 2024 passed in case No.2063 of 2023 on the fire of the Appelate Tribunar cum District collector and firragistrate, Hyderabad District, directing the petitioner to evict from the house bearing H.No.8-2- 2g3t82rAr1085, Jubiree HiIs, Hyderabad within (30) days from the date of the issuing the order, without giving an opportunity of hearing and submit the documentary evidence and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of rndia and apart from being viorative of principres of natural justice and consequenfly set aside the order dated 20-02-2024 passed in case No.2063 of 2023 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal cum District collector and Magistrate, HyrJerabad District, the Respondent No 2 herein by allowing the Appeal No.Sl t4BO;2024 on the file of 2nd respondent, as perverse and unsustainable lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order daled 20-02-2024 passed in case No.2063 of 2023 on the file of the District collector and l/agistrate, Hyderabad District, the 3rd respondent herein, which was upheld by the order dated 16-04-2024 in Appeal No.S1/480/2024 on the file of 2nd respondent, pending final disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. JAYENDRA BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos- 1&3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SUNIL B. GANU' SENIOR COUNSEL REP Smt. RAMA MANOJA *The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I l THE HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE c.v.B HAS KAR REDDY ORDER: WRI T PET ITIO NNo .1 l6 28o f 2024 This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the ' order dated 16.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.SI/480/2024 upholding the order dated 2O.O2.2C24 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.2O63 of 2A23, directing the petitioner to evict from the house bearing H.No.g_2_ 293/82/A/1085, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, within 3O days from the date of order, without giving him any opportunity of hearing and without following due process of law, as i1legal, arbitrary and vio.lative of Articles 14 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and for other appropriate reiiefs. The petitioner herein claims to be the son of respondent case of No.4, who is a retired employee aged about g4 years. .l_he the petitioner is that he got married in the year 2000 and since then, he along with his wife and two daughters is residrng in the house bearing H.No.8_2_293/82/ A/ 1085, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring rg4o square yards, which is said to have been purchased with the income derived from the ancestral agricultural lalds. It is further case of the petitioner that at the instigation of his sisters, respondent No.4 filed an l l i l I I l application dated 19-12.2O23 before respondent No'3 under Rule 2O(2) of the Telangana State Maintenance and Welfare of ParentsandSeniorCitizensRules,2Oll(forshort"theRules") seekingtoevictthepetitionerfromthesaidhousepropertyby. making false allegations, wherein he received a notice dated It is the 24.01.2024 intimating to appear on 02 'O2 '2024 ' further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said notice' he appeared and requested to furnish the copies of documents to enable him to hle reply arld for grant of time for hearing and for production of documentary evidence' The grievarce of the petitioner is that despite the same, respondent No'3 passed orderdated2o.o2.2o24directinghimtovacatethesubject house property within 30 days from the date of the order' Aggrieved b1' the said order, the Petitioner is stated to have preferred appeal before respondent No'2' who in turn without considering the matter in proper perspective' passed the impugned order dated 16.-O4 '2024 in Appeal No'Sl /48O12024 thereby upholding the order passed by respondent No'3' Learncd counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that respondent No-4 is having other properties and the petitioner is residing in a small room along with his wife and two daughters, who are prosecuting their studies; the petitioner ls not having any other sourcc of income to hire a house for residential accommodation; the respondents taking advantage of the impugned order are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject residential house, due to which his lamily members will be put to irreparable loss and hardship; respondent Nos.2 and 3, without deciding the matter on merits based on documentary evidence and examination of witnesses on both sides, straight away passed the impugned orders, nhich are unsustainab.le in law. Mr. Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4,.on the other haad, placing reliarce on the counter affidavit fileri by respondent No.4, submits that respondent No.4, who is a senior citizen and retired as principal Scientist from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (fCAR), is a heart patient ald a victim of abusive behaviour in the hands of the petitioner who renrlered him a homeless with his deceitful me€ms; the subject property is his excrusive and self_acquired property; he purchased the same in two parts under sepa_rate sale deeds vide Document No.4121/g3 dated 13.06. i9g3 for ar extent of 1261 square yards and Document No. 1534/91 dated the Jubilee Hills Co- O7.1L.7997 for ST9 square yards from operative House Building Society and constructed a house I I i I I l I I I 1 ancestrai thereon bY obtaining loans; except stating that the subject one, the Petitioner has not filed anY property ls documentarY evidence in support of his claim; besides the subject property, respondent No'4 purchased certain othef properties with his own funds in the name of the petitioner; the petitio:rer never treated with love and affection and he neglected to maintain respondent No-4 and his wife, who was suffering with lung carcer and passed away on 22 'O8 '2023; despite the fact that respondent No.4 is a senior citizen suffering.from serious aiiments, as the petitioner's ill-treatment became unbearable, he approached respondent No'3 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject house; out of freewill ald volition,respondentNo-4giftedpartofthesubjectpropertyin favour of his both <iaughters, who supported him in clearing the loans and huge debts; when the petitioner caused obstruction for developing the property by the elder daughter of respondent No.4, she was constrained to hle a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.2457 of 2Ol5 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge' Hyderabad which was decreed and the appeal hied against the same is pending vide A.S.No.187 ol 2078; and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No'2 upholding the order passed by respondent No.3, duly hearing both parties and i ) considering thc pleadings and material placcd by the respective parties in support of their claim, does not warrant any intcrference by this Court. . Considered the submissions made by the leanred counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It is evident that respondent No.4 has purchased the subject property with his own funds under two separate sale deeds vide Document No.4121/g3 dated r3-06.19g3 and Document No. 1534/91 dated 07.11.1991 and at the time.of purchase of the subject property, respondent No.2 was working as Scientist in ICAR and the petitioner was a minor, and as such a presumption cal safely be drawn that the petitioner could not contribute any amount for purchase of the subject property and it is the self acquired property of respondent No.4. Furthermore, it is the specific contention of respondent No.4 that even though he purchased certain other properties with his own funds in the name of the petitioner to provide finalcial security to him i.e., a plot admeasuring g65 square yards in Hi_ Tech City in the year 1994, a plot admeasuring 3OO square yards it the year 19g1, iS acres of agricultural lartd in Raikal Village in the year 1994, when he is suffering with serious ailments, as the petitioner,s ill_treatment became unbearable, ./. I ! i I l. I l I l l he filed the petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject house. Thus, as it is established that the subject property is the self acquired property of respondent No'4 and outofhisfreervillandvolition,hegiftedpartofthesubject property in favour of his daughters' who supported him in clearing the loans, respondent No'4 is entitled to deal with the property in the mannet' he desires' The Maintenance ancl Welfare of Parents and Senicr Citizens Act (for short "the Act") has been enacted with an object to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance arrd citizens guaranteed and welfarc of Parents and senior recognised under the Constitution' Section 23 of the Act reads as under: - l to be void io certain

23. 'I'ransfer of ProPertY circumstances. - (1) Wtrere any senior citizen who' after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities ald basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physicai needs. the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor tre declar ed void by the Tribunal. \ \ ) 1 l I I i I I I j (2) Where aly senior citizen has a right to receive maintenancc out o[ an c thcrcof is transferred,,r."t:;,":: ::::"Til;:j may be enforced against the transferee _if the transferee has notice of the right, or i the transfer is Sratuitous; but not against the trarsferee for considerafion a,d without nouce ofright. (3) If, any senior ci[ze rights under sub_secrions,; ;ffi:ffir;fi:,il:; on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub_section (l) of section St The Hon,ble Supreme Court, in the case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and othersr while dealing with the power of Tribunal constituted under the Act, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of thc Act, he.ld as under: '24. Be{orc parting with th case at hand, we must craris the observations made vid compe ten cy or tr e r.i o u.,Lir :" ;TJ::: r:::::"1; the property. In S. Vanith a (supra), this court observed that rribunars under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient t< senior citizen. rherefore,,. "x"::J':::T":',ff Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred- This would r of the Act, which is ,. :".H::J.:'.i:",,il""T"j inexpensive remedies for the elderly. I lzozs) scR ros I j 25- Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is Section 23 being a standalone provision of thc Act. In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act' t1-rat elderly citizens of our country, in some cascs' are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of t1.e cbjectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a proper[- subject to the condition of being maintained by the Lran sfcree." Since, in the instant case, it is established t-h3t subject property which is in occupation of the petitioner is the self-acquired property of respondent No'4' this Court is of the opinion that respondent Nos'2 and 3' duly tating into . ConsiderationtireobjectoftheoftheACt,haverightlypassed the impugned orders directing eviction of the petitioncr from the subject property and as such, the same do not suffer from arry illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court exercising extraordiflary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India- At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pctitioncr is residing in the subject property with his wit-e and two grown up daughters and if they are evicted from lthe subject property, pursuant to the impugled order' they will ) i I I I I I I ! I I I be put to scrious hardship, as such requested this court to grant reasonable time to the petitioner to vacate the subject property to enable him to Ilnd a suitable_alternative residential accommodation. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is residing in the subject house property along.with his wife and two daughters, who are none other than the grand daughters of respcndent No.4, this Court is of the opinion that ends ofjustice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of, granting eight (g) months' time from today to the petitioner to vacate and handover the subject property to respondent No.4, fa ing which respondent No.4 is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies available in law Ior eviction of the petitioner from the subject property The writ pelition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaleous applications, if arry, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-S . MAI-LIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTTCE C (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) HASKAR REDDY

1. 1'1 L.R. Copies. \ ,ThAtlnclersecretary,Unionoflndia,IvlinistryofLaw'Justiceand = *f'Sl;,."ffi1'i!l3Hn?i5'odvocates Association Library Hish court , ?HlloJP.?, Irlt ":?:$: r' Reve n ue Depa rtm ent or Ad m i n istra t io n - i;;i;;i;i, suitau,o, r's ,Hvderabad . , rtpowerment of Persons with 5 The Aopellate Authonty 'ti'dJt"i "r oisabilities, Senior Citizeris'u''iJfo p"rsons',Hyderabad District 6 The coltector and oistrrci'i,lli[tr"t", Hyderabad, Te.lanoana state i one cc to SRl G Lnvil'iiiRn'b-nfAJi' Advocate loPUCl 6 YrjS EEJ:" cp Foii nEvENiji.itgh- bor,1 for rhe stato of rerangana n 8#1" to sN/T G TAt\ilA ITANoJA' Advocate toPUCl 10.Two CD CoPies BM GJP \ W - '- *F t ! !r' '?- 'r' t'ar t 1--'-'- .,:..rr'.**i{is#:;&S HIGH COURT DATED:1 010it12025 l ) ORDER WP.No.11628 of 2024 I 1 HE STA ( {3 zE APil zoz5 ) ( O6,S T'ATC * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 ol

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure