HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No.1151/2024 Bimla Sharma ..... Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate Vs Union Territory of J&K and others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Assisting Counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 10.03.2025 01. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging order dated 07.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2, vide which appeal preferred by her under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 17.11.2023 passed by respondent No.3 on an application preferred by petitioner under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2007’). 02. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 03. It appears that the petitioner, who happens to be the mother of respondent No.4 and mother-in-law respondent No.5, had made an application under Section 4 of the Act of 2007 before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, (Tribunal) alleging therein that her afore-named son and daughter-in- Sr. No. 24 2 WP(C) No.1151/2024 law are pressurizing her to execute a power of attorney and sale agreement in respect of property owned by her at Ward No.16, Shiva Nagar, Kathua. It was further alleged that private respondent Nos.4 & 5 openly declare that they will not let her in the house and that she would be compelled to live at the mercy of the relatives. Accordingly, the petitioner herein sought exclusive possession of the aforesaid property along with eviction of respondent Nos.4 & 5. She claimed that the property in question is herself acquired property. 04. It seems that on 17.11.2023, learned Additional District Magistrate, Kathua (Tribunal) passed an order whereby monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- was awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the private respondents. However, no order for eviction against the private respondents was passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Kathua (Tribunal). 05. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Kathua/respondent No.2 (Appellate Authority) contending that she had sought an order of eviction against the private respondents but instead of doing so, respondent No.3 has only passed an order of maintenance. The Appellate authority/respondent No.2 has by virtue of the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 06. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that in terms of provision contained in Act of 2007, the Tribunal under the Act has jurisdiction to pass order of eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the Senior Citizens, but in the present case neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate authority has adverted to this aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned order. 3 WP(C) No.1151/2024 07. Upon going through the impugned order passed by the Appellate authority it is revealed that the said authority has only tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of grant of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner and it has not addressed the issue with regard to the prayer of petitioner for eviction of the private respondents from the property in question. Even the Tribunal, while passing order dated 17.11.2023, has omitted to address this aspect of the matter though in application made before the Tribunal as well as in the appeal filed before the Appellate authority, the petitioner had specifically sought eviction of private respondents from the property in question. Both the Tribunal as well as the Appellate authority has not dealt with this prayer of petitioner. 08. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal as well as the Appellate authority to consider as to whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was desirable to pass an order of eviction in favour of the petitioner. Unfortunately, both the Tribunal as well as the Appellate authority have not addressed this issue. 09. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Appellate authority is set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate authority with a direction to consider the prayer of petitioner seeking eviction of private respondents from the property in question by specifically addressing this issue. 10. The Appellate authority shall pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondents and after considering the material on record in accordance with law. The fresh order shall be passed by the 4 WP(C) No.1151/2024 Appellate authority expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said Authority. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 10.03.2025 Shammi Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No