Doda/Jammu: In a significant ruling underscoring the right of senior citizens to live with dignity in their own homes, an appellate tribunal in Doda directed the eviction of an elderly man’s son and daughter-in-law from portions of his self-acquired property, according to his lawyer.
The tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, headed by the district magistrate of Doda, Krishan Lal, allowed an appeal filed by the septuagenarian Niaz Ahmed, and modified the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, which had declined to grant eviction while directing the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession, life and property.
The 19-page order, issued on October 22, directed Sheraz Ahmed, the appellant’s son, and his daughter-in-law, Afsha Begum, to vacate the portions of the property occupied by them and hand over possession to Niaz Ahmed, defence lawyer Asif Nawaz Banday, who represented the Appellant in the case, told PTI on Tuesday.
He said the property comprises a two-storey building constructed on 10 marlas of land along Dessa Road, Doda, which Niaz Ahmed had purchased through a registered sale deed on June 16, 2003.
According to the appeal filed on July 2, the elderly man had approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking protection of his life and property, alleging harassment, intimidation, threats and physical assault, besides interference with his peaceful possession.
He also alleged that the respondents had occupied additional portions of the premises during his temporary absence from his house in February.
The appellant further claimed that a shop on the premises provided him with a source of income and that its alleged occupation had affected his livelihood and peaceful enjoyment of the property.
The case brought into focus a painful family dispute involving an ageing father whose wife had died four years ago and his own son, the lawyer said.
The appellant also relied on a registered deed of disinheritance dated January 20, 2023, concerning his son.
The Tribunal had earlier acknowledged that Niaz Ahmed was a senior citizen and the owner in possession of the property, and that his allegations of harassment and threats deserved protection. However, it declined to order eviction at that stage, citing pending civil litigation and the possibility of conflicting findings.
Challenging that decision, Niaz Ahmed argued before the appellate forum that merely restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession did not provide effective protection in the circumstances alleged by him.
The respondents opposed the appeal, contending that the proceedings were not maintainable and that disputes concerning possession and property rights should be decided by the competent civil court. They also referred to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, involving the parties.
After examining the record, the tribunal observed that the appellant’s ownership of the self-acquired property and his status as a senior citizen were not in dispute.
It held that the allegations of harassment, threats and physical assault, along with concerns about his safety and peaceful living, had to be considered collectively.
The tribunal also noted that the earlier civil suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction had been dismissed in default on March 5. It concluded that the mere existence of other proceedings did not, by itself, deprive the Maintenance Tribunal of jurisdiction to consider statutory protection for a senior citizen.
Drawing upon legal precedents, including a judgment of the Supreme Court, the appellate tribunal held that eviction could be ordered where necessary to safeguard a senior citizen’s life, property, dignity and peaceful living, subject to the applicable law and procedural requirements.
The tribunal accordingly directed the respondents to vacate the occupied portions of the property and hand over possession to the appellant.
The Tehsildar, Doda, was directed to take necessary steps to implement the order, with police assistance if required.
It further directed that the implementation process be completed within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order, the lawyer said, adding that the tribunal directed the respondents be served with appropriate notice and given a reasonable opportunity as required under the applicable procedure before coercive steps are taken.
Clarifying the scope of its decision, the tribunal said the order was confined to statutory protection for the senior citizen and the consequential eviction from his self-acquired property.
It would not constitute a final adjudication of any independent claim, defence or remedy available to either party before a competent court or authority, the order said.
Describing the order as landmark, Banday said the ruling reaffirms the principle that senior citizens should not be left vulnerable in their own homes.
For Niaz Ahmed, the order offers a legal avenue to reclaim peaceful possession of his property and restore his sense of security and dignity in the place he calls home, he said.
