AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pranay Verma, J
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional Collector, District Indore, whereby the order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Juni, District Indore has been affirmed whereby the application preferred by him under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been affirmed.
The authorities below have held on the basis of pleadings as made by the petitioner himself in his application that the dispute between the parties is in respect of tenancy over the disputed property hence the same is not covered under the provisions of the Act, 2007.
A perusal of the application preferred by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer shows that as per him, he had let out the disputed property to respondent No.3 on monthly rent upon execution of agreement possession of the same to him despite requests and is instead making false complaints against him to the Police.
The dispute raised by the petitioner is in respect of landlord and tenant based upon tenancy having been created between the parties. As per provisions of Section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for obtaining possession of tenanted premises it is only proceedings under that Act which can be initiated. The said section has a non-obstante clause, meaning thereby that the same would prevail despite any other law in that regard.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Act, 2007 would have the overriding effect against all other enactments as per provisions of Section 3 thereof which provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act but it is to be seen that the Act, 2007 itself provides that an application under the Act can be made as per Section 4 by a senior citizen including parent, who is unable to maintain himself from his own or out of the property owned by him. The application is made against children or against such relative as referred to in Clause (g) of Section 2. For better understanding, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 4 of the Act which is as under:
"4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens -
A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of -
i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor
ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2
The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.
The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.
Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:
Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property."
The application which is hence made under the Act, 2007 is against one or more of the children or against such relative as defined under the Act. It is made for enforcement of the obligation of the children or the relative, as the case may be. There is no provision in the Act under which an application can be made against any third person other than the children or relative. That would include a tenant also.
The application in the present matter has been preferred by the petitioner against his tenant who cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be his child or relative. The application hence does not come within the purview of an application which is permissible to be made under the Act, 2007. The authorities below thus had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the application of the petitioner on merits under the provisions of the Act, 2007. They thus have not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. No fault can be found in the orders passed by them which are accordingly affirmed, as a result of which the petition is dismissed.