AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the orders dated 12/09/2019 (Annexure P-I) and 15/10/2019 (Annexure P-II) by which the petitioner has been directed to comply the order dated 30/11/2015 passed by SDO (Revenue), Morar, District Gwalior under Section 5 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
(2) The respondent No.1 is the father of petitioner and is aged about 82 years. It appears that some dispute arose between the petitioner and his father (respondent No.1), therefore, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 5 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the said application was allowed by order dated 30/11/2015 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within a period of sixty days and to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent of shop @ 10 % interest on the late payment.
(3) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by Collector, District Gwalior by order dated 26/05/2016 and it was directed that the SDO (Revenue) Morar should take necessary steps for execution of the order dated 30/11/2015. Thereafter, the order of SDO (Revenue), Morar and the order of Collector, Gwalior have been challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016 and the following interim order dated 27/07/2016 has been passed by this Court:-
"Issue notice to respondents on payment of process fee within three working days, returnable within three weeks, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.
Subject to regular payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 5000/-per month to the respondent No.3 as ordered by the SDO, Revenue, Morar vide order dated 30.11.2015 and free access to the first floor of the residential house to respondent No.3, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.
List in the week commencing 22.08.2016."
(4) Thus, it is clear that subject to regular payment of rent @ Rs.5,000/-per month to the respondent No.1, as ordered by the SDO (Revenue) Morar, and free access to the first floor of the residential house to the respondent No.1, it was directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner did not honour the orders passed by SDO (Revenue) Morar, District Gwalior and Collector, Gwalior as well as the interim order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and in the said suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties and on 10/02/2018, a compromise deed was drawn in the Lok Adalat, which reads as under:-
"अ- वादी विवादग्रस्त मकानियत का प्रथम तल का कुछ आवासीय भाग (जो वादी के कब्जे में है) को दिनांक 15.05.18 तक रिक्त कर उसका रिक्त आधिपत्य/कब्जा मौके पर प्रतिवादी को सौंप देगा।
ब- वादग्रस्त भवन के भूतल पर स्थित एक दुकान जिसकी लम्बाई 21.6 फुट एवं चैड़ाई 10.3 फुट है और जिसकी दक्षिणी दीवाल में उक्त क्षेत्रफल के अतिरिक्त वर्तमान स्थिति में जो फ्रिज आदि रखने के लिए अतिरिक्त स्थान है और जिसका खुलासा संलग्न मानचित्र में किया गया है (जो वादी के कब्जे में है और जिसमें अनिल मेडीकल स्टोर के नाम से वादी व्यवसाय करता है) का रजिस्टर्ड बयनामा (पार्टीशन-डीड) प्रतिवादी, वादी के नाम पर निष्पादित करा देगा जिसका संपूर्ण खर्चा वादी स्वयं व्यय वहन करेगा।
स- उभयपक्ष अपना-अपना वाद व्यय वहन करेगें। "
(5) It is submitted by the petitioner that by the impugned orders dated 12/09/2019 (Annexure P-I) and 15/10/2019 (Annexure P-II), the respondent No.2 has wrongly directed the petitioner to deposit the amount, as the respondent No.1 has failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in compliance of the compromise deed dated 10/02/2018.
(6) Heard the petitioner in detail.
(7) In the present case, proceedings have been initiated for compliance of the order dated 30/11/2015 passed by SDO (Revenue) Morar as well as the order dated 26/05/2016 passed by Collector, Gwalior and the interim order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016. It appears that the petitioner has not complied the interim order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016. It appears that the respondent No.1, in stead of filing a petition for contempt, moved an application for execution of the aforesaid orders and the orders dated 12/09/2019 and 15/10/2019 have been passed.
(8) So far as non-execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has already initiated the execution proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot refuse to comply the order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016. Until and unless the sale deed is executed, the petitioner is under obligation to comply the order dated 30/11/2015 passed by SDO (Revenue) Morar, the order dated 26/05/2016 passed by Collector and the interim order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016. Although the respondent No.1 has not challenged the order dated 12/09/2019, but it appears that in execution of the order dated 30/11/2015, the SDO (Revenue), Morar without there being any order, has reduced Rs.49,000/- from the arrears of rent on the ground that it is the moral duty of the respondent No.1 to provide financial help to the children of the petitioner for their education expenses and accordingly, it is held that the petitioner is still in arrears of amount of Rs.1,62,000/-.
(9) Considering the interim order dated 27/07/2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5108 of 2016, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the SDO (Revenue) should not have reduced the arrears of rent by Rs.49,000/- on the ground that it is the moral duty of the respondent No.1 to bear the educational expenses of the children of the petitioner, but whether the respondent No.1 has rightly not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or not, cannot be a subject-matter of the present proceedings. If the petitioner is of the view that the compromise decree has not been honoured by the respondent No.1, then the only remedy is available to him to file an execution and it appears that the petitioner has already filed an execution on 27/06/2018, however, he cannot escape from his liability of honouring the interim order of this Court.
(10) Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference in the writ petition.
(11) Since the respondent No.1 has not challenged the reduction of Rs.49,000/- from the arrears of rent and as this petition is being dismissed in limine, therefore, it is held that in case, if reduction of Rs.49,000/- is challenged by the respondent No.1, then dismissal of this petition in limine would not come in his way.
(12) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.