The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified a critical jurisdictional flaw in proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, reinforcing that eviction applications must be heard exclusively by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This ruling resolves a recurring procedural error and restores statutory compliance in senior citizen protection cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking eviction of respondents No.3 and 4 from his residential property. The application was initially filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, who acted in the capacity of the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner. On 15.07.2025, this authority dismissed the application on merits, without addressing the jurisdictional defect.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the owner of the residential property in question
- Respondents No.3 and 4 are alleged to be occupying the property without lawful right
- The petitioner filed the eviction application under Section 23 of the Act, seeking removal of occupants who are not providing maintenance
- The application was filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, on the basis of a purported delegation of powers by the District Magistrate
- No application was ever filed before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Procedural History
- Date of filing of eviction application: Not explicitly stated, but adjudicated on 15.07.2025
- 15.07.2025: Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application
- 17.03.2026: Writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP-6233-2026)
- 17.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the Appellate Tribunal lacked statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction applications under the Act. He relied on a prior coordinate bench judgment in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab (CWP-4744-2018), which held that only the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass eviction orders under Section 23.
The State and respondents No.3 and 4 did not dispute this legal position. The State counsel conceded the jurisdictional error. Respondents’ counsel, while attempting to argue on merits, ultimately accepted that the application was wrongly filed before the Appellate Tribunal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 15.07.2025 and a direction to transfer the application to the competent authority - the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate - for fresh adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an application for eviction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, or whether such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the binding precedent in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab (CWP-4744-2018), wherein this Court held that the District Magistrate and its delegated officers, including Additional Deputy Commissioners, lack jurisdiction to pass eviction orders under Section 23. The Court had clarified that the State of Punjab, through official notification, had vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was a nullity ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel and counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 did not contest the petitioner’s submissions. Both conceded that the application was wrongly filed before the Appellate Tribunal and that the correct forum is the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate. No counter-legal argument was advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra, having been settled by a coordinate bench in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab. The Court cited its own earlier order dated 27.10.2025 in CWP-22501-2021, which explicitly held that the power to pass eviction orders under Section 23 of the Act is vested solely in the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not in the District Magistrate or any officer acting under delegation.
"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."
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is a threshold issue. An order passed by a forum lacking statutory authority is void and cannot be validated by merits-based reasoning. The Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, being an appellate authority under the Act, was never intended to function as a first-tier adjudicator of eviction claims.
The Court further noted that the State of Punjab had issued clear instructions on 18.12.2023, reiterating the exclusive jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal. The petitioner’s prior filing before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not a bar to instituting fresh proceedings before the correct forum.
The Verdict
The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is set aside. The Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner is directed to forthwith transmit the original application (Annexure P-2) to the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 06.04.2026, where the Tribunal shall decide the application afresh in accordance with the Act of 2007 and the Rules, after affording full opportunity of hearing to all parties. Nothing in this order shall prejudice the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Non-Delegable Under the Act
- Practitioners must ensure that all eviction applications under Section 23 of the Act are filed exclusively before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate
- Any filing before the District Magistrate, Additional Deputy Commissioner, or Appellate Tribunal is jurisdictionally defective and liable to be set aside
- Delegation of powers under Section 22 does not extend to Section 23 eviction proceedings
Procedural Errors Cannot Be Curried by Merits Review
- Courts will not validate orders on substantive grounds if the tribunal lacks jurisdiction
- A nullity cannot be cured by a merits-based decision
- Petitioners must raise jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity
Fresh Applications Are Permitted After Invalid Dismissal
- A dismissed application before an incompetent forum does not bar a fresh filing before the correct authority
- The State’s 18.12.2023 instructions explicitly permit such re-filing
- Practitioners may now file fresh applications without fear of res judicata or limitation barring
