[2025:RJ-JP:37295] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13885/2025 Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Opposite Dhanmandi, Baran, Rajasthan- 32505 ----Petitioner Versus Padma Bai Widow Of Lt. Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Opposite Krishi Mandi, Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 15/09/2025 1. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the District Collector, Baran, Rajasthan in appeal under the Act of 2007, whereby no interference was made with the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran. By the said order, injunction was granted restraining the petitioner from adopting unlawful means and with respect to the usage of the property. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners’ livelihood has been adversely affected as he was running a motor vehicle repair shop. It is further contended that the orders passed by both the authorities are bad in law, violative of the principles of natural justice and are non-speaking in nature. It is urged that though services were effected, the impugned orders were passed bypassing the provisions of Section 8 of the Maintenance and [2025:RJ-JP:37295] (2 of 4) [CW-13885/2025] Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 inasmuch as no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded nor was any reliance placed on admissible evidence. 3. It is also submitted that though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, the same were completely ignored, rendering the impugned orders nullities. Reliance has been placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Ranjit Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 2932. 4. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the facts, in brief, are that the respondent is the mother of the petitioner, who was widowed about 20 years ago and is survived by two male children who are employed. Being aggrieved of the petitioner, she filed an application under the Act of 2007 seeking vacation of the property owned by her. The record indicates that service was duly effected upon the petitioner; however, despite such service, no reply was filed nor any opportunity was availed by him. 5. In these circumstances, the quasi-judicial authorities, upon consideration of the facts and the record, passed appropriate orders. Moreover, the ownership of the property and the allegations levelled in the application were duly considered, and the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Section 8 of the Act of 2007 is misconceived, as the provision itself empowers the authority to adopt such summary procedure as it deems fit. Once [2025:RJ-JP:37295] (3 of 4) [CW-13885/2025] the petitioner, despite service, chose not to file any reply, he cannot now claim a vested right to cross-examination, particularly in proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the protection of senior citizens at the fag end of their life. For the sake of handiness, the relevant extract from the rent agreement is reproduced herein below: **mijksDr foopsukuqlkj cgl vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ lquh xbZA i=koyh ,oa fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA odhy izkFkhZ dh cgl ,oa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; lkeus vkrs gSa fd izkFkhZ;k ds nks iq= gSA fot; dqekj o vfuy tSu gS] tks orZeku esa izkFkhZ;k ds edku d`f"k mit e.Mh ds lkeus ckjka esa fuokl djrs gSA cMk iq= fot; dqekj izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk ekjihV o rax djrk pyk vk jgk gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh esa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djuk crk;k gSA ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd fot; dqekj }kjk izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk ekjihV o rax fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk d`f"k mit e.Mh ds lkeus fLFkr edku ds LokfeRo ds laca/k esa fo|qr fcy is'k fd;kA fo|qr fcy izkFkhZ;k ds ifr ftrsUnz dqekj tSu ds uke ls rFkk lkFk gh mDr edku esa fLFkr nqdku dk fdjk;kukek dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa izkFkhZ;k }kjk edku esa fLFkr ,d nqdku Jh ujs'k iq= uanfd'kksj dks fdjk;s ij ns j[kh gSA rFkk lkFk gh izkFkhZ;k }kjk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k fd mDr edku dh ,d ek= ekfyd Lo;a gSA rFkk esjs vykok vU; dksbZ ekfyd ugha gSA ftlls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr edku izkFkhZ;k inek tSu dk LokfeRo dk gSA vizkFkhZ fot; dqekj ls edku [kkyh djok;k tkdj vizkFkhZ dks ikcUn djus gsrq izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj vizkFkhZ fot; dqekj dks edku ls csn[ky djok;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA % fdz;kRed vkns'k %% mijksDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= o`) ekrk firk ds laj{k.k rFkk Hkj.k iks"k.k dY;k.k vf/kfu;e] 2007 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA Fkkukf/kdkjh dksrokyh ckjka dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fot; dqekj dks d`f"k mit e.Mh ds lkeus fLFkr edku esa ls csn[ky fd;k tkdj izkFkhZ;k inek ckbZ csok ftusUnz dqekj tSu tkfr tSu fuoklh d`f"k mit e.Mh ds lkeus ckjka dks fnyk;k tkosaA vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dh yMkbZ >xMk o xkyh xykSp ugha djus gsrq ikcUn fd;k tkosaA Fkkukf/kdkjh dksrokyh ckjka dks mDr vkns'k dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr djkosaA** 6. It is also opined that the petitioners’ failure to respond cannot be attributed to any fault of the authorities. In such circumstances, the use of the expression ‘summary procedure as it deems fit’ under Section 8 assumes significance. Thence, it can be noted that the authorities were within their jurisdiction to [2025:RJ-JP:37295] (4 of 4) [CW-13885/2025] adjudicate the matter on the basis of available evidence, and the application of CPC procedure stood excluded in the facts of the present case. 7. The judgment cited by the petitioner, which pertains to a suit for possession, is distinguishable on facts and has no application to the present matter. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, no interference is called for. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/14