High Court · 2025

WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024 For 4th Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal side)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 4rd respondent. 2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 26/02/2019 passed by the 2nd respondent as he was the original authority under the Maintenance of and Welfare of Patents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 3.By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent directed eviction of the property under the possession of the petitioner. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- ..kDjhuh; rpd;dj;jk;gp jdJ Ra rk;ghj;jpa“ brhj;jhd rhj;J}h; lt[z; rh;nt vz;.173/2 tp];jPuzk; 3-1/2 brz;L epyj;jpy; cs;s fl;lg;gl;Ls;s fjt[ vz;.106> 107> 108 tPl;oid jdJ kfd; rptFkhh; mj;JkPwp mDgtk; bra;J 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024tUgtiu fhyp bra;J jd;dplk; xg;gilf;f nfhhpa[s;shh;. kDjhuh; nkw;go g[y vz;zpy; cs;s brhj;J jdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gjw;fhd fpiua Mtz efy; tPl;Lthp urPJ> kpd;fl;lz urPJ Mfpait rkh;g;gpj;Js;sjd; K:yk; nkw;go brhj;J kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gJ Ch;Ipjk; bra;ag;gLfpwJ. nkYk; kDjhuhpd; taJ 73 vd;gjd; K:yk; K:j;j Fokf;fs; vd;gJk; Ch;Ipjk; bra;ag;gLfpwJ. vjph; kDjhuh; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; kDjhuh; ,Uf;fd;Foapy; FoapUf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; brd;idapy; thjpahd tPl;oid thliff;F tpl;Lk; mjd; K:yk; U:.10>000/- Xa;t{jpak; :K:yk; U:.30>000/- Kjy; U:.40>000/- <l;o tUtjhft[k; fhh; itj;Js;sjhft[k; bjhptpj;Js;shh.; ,t;tpraq;fs; midj;Jk; ,t;tHf;fpy; tpthjj;jpw;F vLj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oa bghUs; my;y. nkYk; vjph;kDjhuh; rptFkhh; nkw;go brhj;J rk;ke;jkhf rhj;J}h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; O.S 63/2017 tHf;F bjhLj;Js;sjhft[k; mjd; efy; rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;. ,t;tprak; chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; eilbgw;W tUtjhy; ahUf;F chpika[s;sJ vd;gjpy; cl;nfhl;l eph;thf eLth; kw;Wk; tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpah; jiyapl KoahJ. kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;jpy; jpU.rptf;Fkhh; jw;nghJ jq;fp tUtJ Ch;IpjkhfpwJ. kDjhuh; jdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gjw;fhd fpiuag;gj;jpu Mtzk; efy; rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;. vjph; kDjhuh; ,jd;kPJ chpik nfhUtJ chpikapay; ePjpkd;w jPh;g;gpd;gona Kot[ bra;a ,aYk;. Mdhy; kDjhuh; Kjpnahh; 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024kw;Wk; K:j;j Fokf;fs; guhkhpg;g[ ey;thH;t[r; rl;lk; 2007-d;go mtuJ Ra rk;ghj;jpa brhj;jpy; FoapUf;f KG chpik cs;sJ. mj;JkPwp kDjhuh; tPl;oy; FoapUe;j mtiu mtuJ tPl;oy; FoapUf;f tplhJ ,Ug;gJk; Ch;IpjkhfpwJ. vdnt vjph;kDjhuh; rptf;Fkhh; vd;gth; kDjhuh; rpd;dj;jk;gpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l tPl;oy; thhprhd jpU.rptf;Fkhh; FoapUg;gJ kDjhuh; Ml;nrgid bra;ahj epiyapy; vjph;kDjhuh; FoapUg;gjpy; gpur;rid vJk; Vw;gLtjpy;iy. Mdhy; jw;nghJ kDjhuh; Ml;nrgid bra;J tUtjhYk; kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l tPl;oid kPl;L juf; nfhhpa[s;sjhYk; bgw;nwhh; kw;Wk; K:j;jFokf;fs; guhkhpg;g[ kw;Wk; ey;thH;t[r; rl;lk; 2007-d; go eltof;if vLf;f nfhhpa[s;sjhy; tprhuizapd; mog;gilapYk; kDjhuh; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s Mtzq;fspd; go kDjhuh; bjhptpj;Js;s brhj;J kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpakhdjhy; kDjhuh; 73 tajpy; mtuJ Ra rk;ghj;jpa brhj;jpy; FoapUf;f chpika[s;sjhy; vjph;kDjhuh; jpU.rptFkhh; kDjhuh; tPl;oy; FoapUe;J tUk; tPl;oid ,t;cj;jut[ fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khjj;jpw;Fs; bgw;nwhh; kw;Wk; K:j;jFokf;fs; guhkhpg;g[ kw;Wk; ey;thH;t[r; rl;lk; 2007 mj;jpahak; 5> gphpt[ 20(2)(i)-d; go fhyp bra;J xg;gilf;f kDjhuhplk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. ,t;t[j;jut[ vjph; kDjhuh; jpU.rptf;Fkh; vd;gtUf;F ,ila{uhf ,Ug;gpd; cj;jut[ fpilf;fg; bgw;w 30 jpdq;fSf;fs; khtl;l Ml;rpah; mth;fSf;F nky;KiwaPL bra;J bfhs;syhk;.4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024 rhj;J}h; lt[d; fhty; Ma;thsh; bgw;nwhh; kw;Wk; K:j;jFokf;fs; guhkhpg;g[ kw;Wk; ey;thH;t[r; rl;lk; 2007 rl;lj;jpd;go kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;jpid jpU.rptf;FkhhplkpUe;J kPl;L xg;gilf;f eltof;if vLf;ft[k; fhty; Ma;thsUf;F cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ. ” 4.Earlier, a writ petition was filed before this court against the order of the first respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, who by order, dated 22/01/2021 who has reversed the order of the second respondent. This order was successfully challenged by the third respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner in WP(MD)No.2698 of 2021, vide order, dated 07/06/2024 following the decision of a Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of K.Raju Vs. Union of India reported in 2021(2) CTC 129. 5.Although, the petitioner is before this court against the order of the second respondent, as the petitioner has no appeal remedy against the order of the second respondent, the facts on the record reveal that pursuant to a family arrangement, the petitioner 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024has been put in possession of the property. The family arrangement is recorded in a document, dated 16/01/2012. 6.Although, it is the contention of the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the petitioner that the object document was not executed by the third respondent. It is the further case of the third respondent that no such arrangement was there. The reason for the third respondent to approach the 2nd respondent was on account of the decision of the petitioner to demolish the existing structure and to put up a new construction without the permission of the third respondent and therefore, the third respondent has approached the second respondent for evicting the petitioner. 7.The fact on record also reveals that the petitioner has also filed a suit for bare injunction in OS No.63/2017 before the District Munsif Court, Sattur. The said suit is still pending. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent is not in a 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024state of indigency or without any shelter for the third respondent to invoke the machinery under section 23 of the said Act or other provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the trial has commenced in OS No.63/2017 before the District Munsif Court, Sattur and therefore, on this account also, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 26/02/2019 is un-sustainable. 9.That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner was a former employee of the School Education Department and is merely getting pension and the third respondent is also having two other properties in Chennai, where the third respondent is residing apart from the fact that the third respondent is also earning income from leasing of another property. 10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, confirms that the property is owned by the third respondent and that the petitioner is a permissive occupation as per the above said family arrangement, which is denied by the third respondent.7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024 11.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision rendered by this court in the case of M.Mohamed Saffee Vs. District Collector, Collector Office, Thanjavur Division and another, wherein taking note of the object of the Act, the court had referred to para 13, 14 and 15 observed as under:- “13.I must note that this restriction on the right of the Applicant is confined only if remedy is sought under Section 5 of the Act. The power of ordering eviction is not exclusively traceable to Section 5 of the Act. On the other hand, this power is derived from overall Statutory scheme, and not with reference to any particular provision. Therefore, the condition that is Applicable in the case of granting remedy under a particular provision ought not to be put against the Second Respondent. I, therefore, hold that the application filed by the Second Respondent is very much maintainable. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent, the Act is a beneficial legislation and it should 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024not be interpreted in a manner so as to reduce the scope of remedies available to Senior Citizens/Parents. 14.The learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submitted that Petitions under Section 23 of the Act are being casually entertained and that the Authority should insist that along with the Petition, encumbrance Certificate obtained up to date should be filed. Otherwise the rights of the subsequent Transferees will be infringed behind their backs. I am certain that the Maintenance Tribunals will bear this in mind while entertaining Petitions under Section 23 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act states that the Maintenance Tribunal can adopt Summary procedure, while holding an enquiry and call for production of relevant documents. Certainly, Encumbrance Certificate would be a relevant document. 15.The Petitioner/Co-Owner of the Petition mentioned premises would not be evicted. However, the rights of the Second Respondent to reside in the premises in question is independently 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024recognised. I place on record the undertaking given by the Petitioner that the Second Respondent can reside in the Petition mentioned premises without any let or hindrance.” 12.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that the order of the third respondent invoking the machinery under section 23 of the Act, although the same was not invoked by the 2nd respondent, warrants an interference. 13.The petitioner and the third respondent are son and the father. The petitioner has been possession in the property. The petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.63 of 2017. The third respondent ought to have filed a counter suit for recovery of possession, in case the third respondent was aggrieved by the action of the petitioner. 14.Be that as it may, the suit is now pending before the District Munsif Court, Sattur in OS No.63 of 2017 for a bare injunction. In case, the suit is 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024dismissed by the trial court or any favourable order is secured by the petitioner, it is open always to the third respondent to approach the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Patents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against the petitioner. 15.In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. Liberty is also given to the third respondent to file a suit for recovery of possession, if he so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous are closed. 21/08/2025Internet :Yes/NoIndex :Yes/NoNCC : Yes/Noer11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024To,1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.2.The Sattur Sub-Divisional Administrative Judge, Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.3.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Sattur Town, Virudhunagar District. 4.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5.The Government Advocate, (Criminal side) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7391 of 2024C.SARAVANAN,JerWP(MD)No.7391 of 202421/08/202513/13