Tribune press service
Chandigarh, January 7
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an elderly parent has the right to bring an action in a civil court to request the eviction of a family member from their property. With this, the High Court ended the legal debate over the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate on such parental remedies.
Judge Anil Kshetarpal’s decision came in an appeal by a son, along with another appellant, against his mother after being ordered to vacate, vacate and cede vacant physical possession of residential property that belonged exclusively to him.
The mother’s case was that she had allowed her son and his family to stay in the house as a free permit holder. Since the appellants had misbehaved, she canceled the license and sought possession by bringing an action. The courts below simultaneously found that the appellants had no right, title or interest in the property, nor were they entitled to continue to inhabit the house.
Their lawyer argued that exclusive jurisdiction in the matter lay with a tribunal constituted under the Parents and Elderly Maintenance and Welfare Act and that the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded under the article 27.
Referring to Article 27, Judge Kshetarpal asserted that a careful reading showed that the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded “only in respect of any matter to which a provision of the law applied”. But the appellants made no provision for the court to issue a deportation order. Such a provision was made within the framework of the Punjab-2014 Action Plan.
Judge Kshetarpal added: âOnce the object of the law is to ensure the protection and well-being of parents and the elderly, the provisions of the law cannot be interpreted so as to go to the ‘runs counter to the very purpose of the law for which such legislation on social protection has been adopted.
Judge Kshetarpal observed that some states had devised a plan to give a court the power to decide such issues, but its validity was in dispute. In one of the judgments, the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare Scheme of Parents and Senior Citizens, allowing aggrieved persons to file a petition in court, was overturned by the High Court and an appeal was pending. In another case, it was held that a deportation request in such circumstances was admissible in court.
Dismissing the appeal, Judge Kshetarpal added that the question of the tribunal’s jurisdiction was evolving. It was not appropriate to keep the case pending, especially when the civil jurisdiction was plenary. âThe courts were created to provide swift and efficient justice to the parties. Objections taken solely to thwart the justice process must be interpreted in such a way as to advance the cause of substantial justice â.