The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an order against a retired cop in his 80s over a property dispute.
His son had challenged an eviction order passed by the District Magistrate in favour of the cop. Even the appellate authority had also upheld the order.
Justice V Kameswar Rao in a recent order observed, ''Given the purpose of the enactment, under which the authorities have exercised their jurisdiction and the fact that the respondent is 80 years of age with no place to live, I do not see that the orders fall for consideration, calls for any interference. The writ petition is dismissed."
The bench also observed, "Though a submission has been made that the property being in the name of the petitioner, the respondent has no right on the property. I say nothing on that, as the issue is pending before the Civil Court."
The petitioner Suresh Malik has challenged two orders, first being the eviction order dated November 30, 2018, passed by the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. Secondly, the order directing the SHO to take necessary action with regard to the unauthorised use of weapons being in the possession of the petitioner.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not served with a notice in respect of the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate and decided the case against the petitioner without hearing him.
The High Court in a recent order said that it is clear from the finding of the District Magistrate that the notice was issued to the petitioner. Despite service, he was absent in the proceedings.
The Court said that the facts, as noted from the record are, the father of the petitioner, the respondent, is a Senior Citizen of 80 years having retired from Delhi Police. He was a member of the Delhi Police Officers Housing Society and a flat at Vijeta Vihar, Rohini, Delhi was allotted. The said flat was purchased by the respondent from his own money. A conveyance deed was executed in favour of the respondent on September 12, 2006.
It was alleged by the respondent Ram Kishan Malik that his son fraudulently got executed from him a sale deed of the aforesaid flat on November 21, 2009. He had not sold the said property to his son, though his son allegedly showed a sale transaction of Rs 11,07,400 through a cheque. It was also alleged that his son was harassing and misbehaving with him.
He also mentioned that a revolver was given to the respondent by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a reward. He said that he had given the said weapon for renewal, but after the renewal, his son refused to return it to his father.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor