- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28694 WP No. 1275 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1275 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI. MUNIVENKATAYYA S/O SRI THIMMAYYA @ BULLAYYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC.AGRICULTURE AND KOOLI R/AT BYJAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMNAGARA DISTRICT-562 120 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.M. HALASWAMY., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE PRESIDENT OF SENIOR CITIZEN MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL RAMNAGARA SUB DIVISION RAMNAGARA-562 159 2. SRI GANGATHIMMAYYA-URF-THIMMAYYA @ BULLAYYA S/O LATE BYLAYYA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT BYJAPPA VILLAGE KASABA HOBALI MAGADI TALUK RAMNAGARA DISTRICT-562 120 …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABURAO., AGA FOR R1; SMT. SHARADAMMA G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28694 WP No. 1275 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN NO. HIRIYANA.RA.KA.SAM/07/2018-19 DATED 18.12.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.06.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Call for the Records in No.HIRIYANA.RA.KA.SAM/07/2018-19 dated 18/12/2019 (Annexure-E) passed by the 1st Respondent. ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ or Order or direction to quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent in case No. HIRIYANA.RA.KA.SAM/07/2018-19 (Annexure-E). iii. Pass such other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.2-Senior Citizen has filed proceedings before respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner seeking for payment of maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and for eviction of the petitioner from the property which had been gifted. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28694 WP No. 1275 of 2020 3. The 1st respondent-the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 18.12.2019 directed the petitioner to be evicted from the premises. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that a Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), does not have the power to order possession to be transferred. This aspect is no longer res integra inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of URMILA DIXIT VS. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS.,1 more particularly para 24 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S.Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of 1 Civil Appeal.No.10927/2024 DD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28694 WP No. 1275 of 2020 the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.” 5. In view of the above decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Tribunal would possess power to order for transfer of possession and if such power were not granted to the Tribunal, it would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly. Hence, the contention now raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 6. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that a suit is pending, it is for the parties to agitate the rights in the said suit. Needless to say, that the parties would be bound by the judgment passed in the suit. No grounds being made out. The petition stand dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1