A senior citizen’s application for eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from her residence was dismissed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has now clarified that such applications must be adjudicated exclusively by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh hearing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Savita Mahajan, a sexagenarian senior citizen, filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act of 2007), seeking eviction of respondent No.3 (her son) and respondent No.4 (her daughter-in-law) from her residential property. The application was initially filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, who dismissed it on 19.05.2022. A subsequent review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 24.11.2022 on three grounds: (1) a Supreme Court ruling that a daughter-in-law cannot be evicted from a shared household; (2) a coordinate bench of this Court having struck down the power of the District Magistrate to pass eviction orders; and (3) the authority’s lack of power to review its own order.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the owner of the residential property in question.
- Respondent No.3 is her son and Respondent No.4 is his wife (daughter-in-law).
- The petitioner alleged that the respondents were residing in her house without her consent and were causing mental and physical harassment.
- The eviction application (Annexure P-3) was filed under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which permits a senior citizen to seek eviction of a person who is not entitled to reside in the property.
- The application was filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who is not the statutorily designated authority under the Act.
- The petitioner had previously approached the District Magistrate, but following the judgment in CWP-4744-2018 (Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab) dated 23.01.2020, which held that the District Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to pass eviction orders, the State of Punjab issued instructions transferring jurisdiction to the Maintenance Tribunal.
- The State of Punjab issued instructions dated 18.12.2023, explicitly directing that all eviction applications under the Act of 2007 be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Procedural History
- 19.05.2022: Application for eviction dismissed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala.
- 24.11.2022: Review application dismissed by the same authority.
- 15.12.2020: Supreme Court in SLP No.3822 of 2020 held that a daughter-in-law cannot be evicted from a shared household.
- 23.01.2020: Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP-4744-2018 held that District Magistrate has no power to pass eviction orders under the Act of 2007.
- 15.12.2025: Punjab & Haryana High Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal Sharma v. Sushila Devi) held that eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law are not maintainable under the Act.
- 27.10.2025: Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP-22501-2021 held that eviction applications must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal and not before the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
- 10.12.2023: State of Punjab issued official instructions transferring jurisdiction to the Maintenance Tribunal.
- 10.12.2023: Petitioner filed the instant writ petition (CWP-18241-2023) before the High Court.
- 24.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the Additional Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction applications under the Act of 2007. She relied on the judgment in CWP-22501-2021 and the State’s 18.12.2023 instructions, which clearly vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Maintenance Tribunal. She argued that the dismissal of her application on jurisdictional grounds was a nullity and that the matter must be transferred to the correct forum.
For the Respondents
Respondent No.4 (daughter-in-law) opposed the maintainability of the eviction application against her, citing LPA-701-2018, which held that eviction proceedings under the Act cannot be initiated against a daughter-in-law. She argued that even if jurisdiction were transferred, the application was substantively barred.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the orders dated 19.05.2022 and 24.11.2022; (2) transfer of her eviction application to the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate; and (3) direction for expeditious hearing before the correct forum.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an application for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner possesses any statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate such applications.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the judgment in CWP-22501-2021, which held that the State of Punjab, through its official instructions dated 18.12.2023, had transferred the power to pass eviction orders exclusively to the Maintenance Tribunal. It was argued that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, being a civil administrative officer, had no statutory authority under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner emphasized that the dismissal of her application on jurisdictional grounds rendered it void ab initio, and that the matter must be remanded to the correct forum.
For the Respondent
Respondent No.4’s counsel contended that the eviction application was not maintainable against a daughter-in-law, citing LPA-701-2018, which held that the Act does not permit eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law. He argued that the jurisdictional defect was immaterial because the application was substantively barred.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue of jurisdiction under the Act of 2007 was no longer res integra. It referred to its own coordinate bench judgment in CWP-22501-2021, which had explicitly held that the power to adjudicate eviction applications under Section 23 of the Act had been vested exclusively in the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate by virtue of the State’s official instructions dated 18.12.2023. The Court noted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, despite being a judicial officer in some contexts, was not designated under the Act to hear such applications.
"The issue is no longer res integra, as it has been consistently held that applications seeking eviction orders under the Act of 2007 are required to be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner."
The Court further held that the dismissal of the application by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was a jurisdictional error, rendering the order a nullity. The Court rejected the argument that the substantive bar under LPA-701-2018 could justify the jurisdictional defect, stating that the question of maintainability against a daughter-in-law must be decided by the competent authority - the Maintenance Tribunal - after full hearing.
The Court emphasized that procedural compliance under the Act is mandatory and that the State’s instructions were binding. It also noted that the earlier dismissal on jurisdictional grounds did not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh application before the correct forum, as clarified in CWP-22501-2021.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the orders dated 19.05.2022 and 24.11.2022. The Additional Deputy Commissioner is directed to forthwith transmit the original application (Annexure P-3) to the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 09.04.2026, where the Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to all parties. The question of maintainability of the eviction application against the daughter-in-law is left open for adjudication by the Maintenance Tribunal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Errors Cannot Be Excused by Substantive Defenses
- Practitioners must ensure that eviction applications under the Act of 2007 are filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, not any other civil or appellate authority.
- A jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by raising substantive defenses such as the non-maintainability of the application against a daughter-in-law.
- Courts will not uphold orders passed by non-statutory authorities, even if the outcome appears favorable.
State Instructions Bind All Authorities
- Official notifications or instructions issued by the State Government under the Act are binding on subordinate authorities.
- The transfer of jurisdiction from District Magistrate to Maintenance Tribunal, as per the State’s 18.12.2023 instructions, is mandatory and must be followed without exception.
- Any application filed before a non-designated authority must be transferred, not dismissed.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Senior citizens seeking eviction must be guided to file applications in the correct forum from the outset.
- Legal aid clinics and senior citizen welfare organizations must update their procedural checklists to reflect the jurisdictional shift.
- Delay in filing before the correct forum cannot be excused if the initial filing was in the wrong authority.
