CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209) CWP No. 1708 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Tehal Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Devinder Pal Singh Joura, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned ex parte order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the eviction order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 has been set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the residential house in question, purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1986. It is submitted that respondent No.4, being his nephew, was permitted to reside with him for his care and support in his old age, but no valid adoption deed was ever executed. However, respondent No.4 subsequently started harassing the petitioner and, despite having no right or title in the property, forcibly occupied a portion of the house. A settlement was arrived at before the Panchayat, under which RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -2- respondent No.4 agreed to provide food, medicines and other basic necessities to the petitioner and to discharge certain liabilities, but he failed to honour the said settlement. The Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the material on record, found that respondent No.4 was neither the biological nor the legally adopted son of the petitioner and, accordingly, directed him to vacate the house vide order dated 19.04.2022. Learned counsel submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal, without ensuring proper service upon the petitioner or affording him an effective opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned ex parte order dated 04.10.2022 and set aside the eviction order. It is contended that respondent No.4 was aware of the changed address of the petitioner, yet notice was not duly served upon him. The impugned order, therefore, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, a senior citizen, and is contrary to the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that, in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Simrat Randhawa versus State of Punjab’ (CWP-4744-2018, decided 23.01.2020) and the subsequent instructions dated 18.12.2023 issued pursuant to ‘Gurdial Singh versus State of Punjab and Others’ (CWP-27195-2023), it is the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, and not the District Magistrate, that is competent to adjudicate an application for eviction under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. She, however, does not dispute that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the order dated 19.04.2022 was, in the ordinary course, entertained and decided by the Appellate Tribunal-cum- RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -3- District Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the impugned order and submits that respondent No.4 was, in fact, adopted by the petitioner and was not afforded an effective opportunity to substantiate his claim of adoption before the Maintenance Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has raised false allegations against respondent No.4 at the instance of his daughters. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 6. Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-27195- 2023 titled as ‘Gurdial Singh versus State of Punjab and Others’, wherein it has been held that, in view of the instructions issued by the State of Punjab, the Maintenance Tribunal is competent to adjudicate an application seeking eviction. The relevant extract from the said judgment is extracted hereinafter:- "4. A perusal of the above instructions would show that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, it has been decided by the State of Punjab that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass the eviction orders in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act as there is no bar regarding the same but the District Magistrate cannot pass the eviction orders on account of the judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in CWP-4744-2018 titled 'Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab'. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, he had filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in pursuance of the District Magistrate having delegated its powers under Section 22 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and thus, he states that he may be permitted to withdraw the said application with liberty to file a fresh application before the Maintenance Tribunal in accordance with the latest instructions issued by the State of Punjab. RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -4- 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and 4 has submitted that in case any such application is filed, respondents No.3 and 4 be permitted to raise all the pleas which are available to them, in accordance with law. 7. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) It would be open to the petitioner to file an application for eviction in addition to other pleas that he might wish to raise before the Maintenance Tribunal. (ii) The Maintenance Tribunal would decide the same after hearing all the parties concerned and after giving due opportunity to file reply to respondents No.3 and 4. (iii) The Maintenance Tribunal would also take into consideration the instructions dated 18.12.2023 passed by the State of Punjab and decide the matter, in accordance with law. (iv) The filing of the earlier petition by the Senior Citizen before the District Magistrate/ADA and the order passed thereon by the said authority, would not come in the way of the petitioner instituting the fresh proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal in view of the instructions dated 18.12.2023 of Government of Punjab. The above said earlier petition would be deemed to have been withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh petition, as detailed in the present order. (v) In case any such petition is filed by the Senior Citizen, the Maintenance Tribunal is requested to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that, in view of the judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Simrat Randhawa versus State of Punjab’ and the subsequent instructions dated 18.12.2023 issued by the State of Punjab, the Maintenance Tribunal is competent to consider an application seeking eviction under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, whereas the District Magistrate is not competent to pass an eviction order, the Action Plan conferring such power upon the District Magistrate having itself been held unsustainable in Simrat Randhawa (supra). The subsequent instructions, as noticed in Gurdial Singh (supra), thus recognise and give effect to the legal position already settled in Simrat RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -5- Randhawa (supra); they do not create that position afresh. 8. In the present case, the order dated 19.04.2022 was passed by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, on the application moved by the petitioner seeking eviction of respondent No.4. The said authority considered the rival claims of the parties, including the claim of respondent No.4 regarding adoption and the alleged Panchayat settlement, and thereafter passed the order directing respondent No.4 to vacate the house. The learned Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, while setting aside the said order vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2022, proceeded on the premise that the power to order eviction vested with the District Magistrate and that the Maintenance Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. 9. In view of the legal position noticed hereinabove, the aforesaid premise of the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate was competent to consider the petitioner's application seeking eviction under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Consequently, the order dated 19.04.2022 could not have been set aside on the ground that the Maintenance Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass an eviction order. 10. There is also substance in the petitioner's grievance regarding the manner in which the appeal was proceeded with. The record shows that the registered summons issued at the address furnished for the petitioner were returned with the endorsement that the address was incorrect. Thereafter, respondent No.4 informed the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was residing with his daughter at Village Rakhala. The record, RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -6- however, indicates that thereafter attempts were made only telephonically through the petitioner's son-in-law, but no formal notice was issued to the petitioner at the address so disclosed. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned ex parte order dated 04.10.2022 was passed. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained also on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned ex parte order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, stands restored. It shall, however, be open to respondent No.4 to avail of such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law before the Maintenance Tribunal- cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, including in respect of his grievance regarding the opportunity to substantiate his claim of adoption. In the event any such proceedings are instituted, the same shall be considered by the competent authority on their own merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 12. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 79 years and has remained out of possession of his house for a considerable period, the order dated 19.04.2022 shall be given effect to in accordance with law, subject to any order that may hereafter be passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on any remedy availed of by respondent No.4. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. All questions, including those RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 1708 of 2026 -7- relating to the alleged adoption, ownership, possession and the Panchayat settlement, are left open to be considered, if raised, by the competent Maintenance Tribunal in accordance with law. 14. The present writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 15. Civil miscellaneous application(s), if any pending, shall stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE September 03, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.09.08 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh