Garish Kalra v. Veeran Devi And ORS

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.04 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21484 of 2015 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.21484 of 2015 Date of decision:29.07.2016 Garish Kalra

...Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Veeran Devi and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta , Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, allowing the application filed under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rule 22(2)(i) of the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2012, directing the petitioner to vacate the ground floor of Kothi No.22, Dashmesh Colony, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura and to hand over its vacant possession to his mother (respondent No.1 herein) and the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.04 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21484 of 2015 [ 2 ] ***** A feeble attempt is made by learned counsel for the petitioner to find fault with the impugned orders on the ground that the authorities had no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. However, interference of this Court is sought for the purpose of a settlement between the parties who are the mother and son.

Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the efforts made for the settlement have already failed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, it is found that notice in this case was issued to explore the possibility of a settlement and then the Court had called the parties in chamber but the settlement could not be arrived at and thus, the case was listed for hearing on merits.

The petitioner stands on a weak ground insofar merits of the case is concerned and, thus, I do not find any reason to interfere in the well considered orders passed by the both the authorities under the Act by which eviction of the petitioner has been ordered.

Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.

July 29, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No