ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner calls in question the correctness of order dated 27.05.2015 passed by Collector, Seoni in purported exercise of his powers under Section 21 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, read with Rule 19 of M.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Patents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. 3. Respondent No.4, a septuagenarian invoking the provision of Section 21 of 2007 Act filed an application before the District Magistrate, Seoni seeking indulgence that having retired from the service of State Bank of India, as Branch Manager in the year 1998, he settled down in the house situated at Somwari Bajar, of his ownership. That, in the year 2013, the applicant suffered heart ailment and had to take medical treatment at Bangalore and Jabalpur. That, while undergoing a treatment at Jabalpur in 2014, the petitioner, younger son of respondent No.4, who was married on 10.12.2013, reportedly started demolishing the house with an intention to construct a new house there-over and denied the access to respondent No.4. 4. On being noticed by the District Magistrate, the petitioner herein denied all the contentions and claiming the house in question to be an ancestral property having ?th share in the said house, justified his action. Besides, an objection as to jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 21 of 2007 Act to entertain an application, which otherwise was tenable under Section 5 before the Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of 2007 Act, was also raised by the petitioner, who sought the dismissal of complaint being beyond the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate. On the application report was sought from Sub-Divisional Officer (City) Seoni. The report was furnished on 15.04.2014 whereon, the District Magistrate declined to grant any interim relief by order dated 16.04.2014. The order was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. That, by order dated 02.09.2014 the Appeal was disposed of on 02.09.2014 with an observation that the Collector will take a decision on merit. The report was furnished on 15.04.2014 whereon, the District Magistrate declined to grant any interim relief by order dated 16.04.2014. The order was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. That, by order dated 02.09.2014 the Appeal was disposed of on 02.09.2014 with an observation that the Collector will take a decision on merit. It was observed : ^^7- vfHkys[k ls Li"V gS fd [kljk ua0 38@1 dh Hkwfe@edku vkosnd jes'k pUnz ,oa mlds HkkbZ jkeukjk;.k dh 'kkfeykrh laifRr gS rFkk [kljk ua0 38@3 dh Hkwfe@edku vkosnd jes'k pUnz ds uke ntZ gSA iSr`d laifRr gksus ij fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds rgr vukosnd dks mRrjkf/kdkj esa bl laifRr esa fgLlk izkkIr gksxk ijarq vkosnd jes'k pUnz ds thfor jgrs gq, ughaA vius thoudky esa laifRr ij vkosnd jes'k pUnz dk gh gd gS rFkk mldk uke Hkh jktLo vfHkys[k esa ntZ gSA bl laifRr ij 'kkfeykrh [kkrs esa vukosnd jkts'k dqekj dk uke ntZ ugha gSA vr% mls vkosnd ds thfor jgrs gq, bl laifRr ij dksbZ gd izkIr ugha gksus rFkk jktLo vfHkys[k esa mldk uke ntZ ugha gksus ls] bls gd esa izkIr djus rFkk ml ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gSaA 8- vkns'k if=dk fnukad 12-03-2014 }kjk mHk;i{k dks lquus ds mijkar dysDVj }kjk LFkxu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj LFkxu vkns'k ,di{kh; ugha FkkA 9- mijksDr dafMdk 6 ,oa 7 esa dh xbZ foospuk ij dysDVj flouh dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gSA muls vis{kk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k dh izfof"V;ksa ,oa fof/kd fLFkfr ds ifjizs{; esa izdj.k dk fopkj.k djsa lkFk gh e/;izns'k esUVsusUl ,.M osyQs;j vkWQ isjsUV~l ,.M lhfu;j flVhtUl :Yl 2009 ds fu;e 19 ds rgr mUgsa ofj"B ukxfjdksa ds thou ,oa laifRr ds laj{k.k ds laca/k esa tks mRrjnkf;Ro ,oa vf/kdkj lkSais x;s gSa] muds ikyu esa vkosnd ds fgr dk laj{k.k djrs gq, vkosnd dks mfpr jkgr iznku dh tk,A izdj.k ds vafre fujkdj.k rd vkosnd dks mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij varfje jkgr iznku djus dk vkSfpR; ik;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k funsZ'kkRed u gksdj lykg dh izd`fr dk ekuk tk;sxkA dysDVj }kjk fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr ,oa lquokbZ mijkar xq.knks"k ij izdj.k dk leqfpr fujkdj.k fd;kA tk;sA mHk;i{k bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk dysDVj flouh ds le{k 15 fnol dh le;kof/k esa mifLFkr gksA** 5. The order, i.e. order dated 02.09.2014 was not challenged by the petitioner and was thus allowed to attain finality. The District Magistrate in furtherance to the order dated 02.09.2014 and after affording the opportunity of hearing decided the application preferred by respondent No.4 on 27.05.2015. The order, i.e. order dated 02.09.2014 was not challenged by the petitioner and was thus allowed to attain finality. The District Magistrate in furtherance to the order dated 02.09.2014 and after affording the opportunity of hearing decided the application preferred by respondent No.4 on 27.05.2015. Since the jurisdictional aspect was already decided by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, Collector considered the matter on merit holding : 15- izdj.k esa layXu leLr nLrkost] ,oa ekrk&firk vksj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vf/kfu;e 2007 dh /kkjk 21 ,oa 22 ,oa e0iz0 esUVsusUl ,aM oyQs;j vkWQ isjsUVl~ ,aM lhfu;j flVhtUl :Yl] 2009 vf/klwpuk fnukad 02-07-2009 dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k] rFkk dfe'uj tcyiqj }kjk muds vH;kosnu izdj.k Øeakd 335@ch&121@13&14 ds ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-09-2014 dh dafMdk 6 o 7 ij fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dks vkd`"V fd;k gSA lqJh izhfr ukxzsUnz uk;c rglhynkj caMksy ,oa lqyg vf/kdkjh flouh }kjk izLrqr tkap izfrosnu dk voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu djus ij ik;k tkrk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k dh izfof"V ,oa fof/kd fLFkfr ds ifjizs{; esa izdj.k esa e0i0 esUVsusUl ,.M oyQs;j vkWQ isjsUV~l ,.M lhfu;j flVhtUl :Yl 2009 ds fu;e 19 ds rgr mUgsa ofj"B ukxfjdksa ds thou ,oa laifRr ds laj{k.k ds laca/k esa tks mRrjnkf;Ro ,oa vf/kdkj lkSais x;s gSA vukosnd jkts'k rkezdkj dks vius o`) firk dh ns[k&Hkky djuk vko';d gSA vukosnd }kjk bu nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosnd Jh jes'k rkezdkj }kjk tks laifRr;ka vius iwoZtksa ls izkIr gqbZ gSA rFkk vius LovftZr /ku ls laifRr;ksa ij mldk LokfeRo ,oa vf/kdkfjrk /kkfjr gSA iz'uk/khu laifRr vkosnd dh LovftZr ugha gSA iwoZtksa dh Hkwfe laifRr gSA fgUnq mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds rgr vukosnd dk bl laifRr dk 1@6 Hkkx crkSj gd izkIr gSA IykV uacj 38@1 dh Hkwfe edku vkosnd jes'k panz Lo;a mlds HkkbZ jkeukjk;.k ds uke ij ntZ gSA jktLo fujh{kd ds izfrosnu fnukad 23-03-2014 esa IykV ua0 38@3 esa ls 702 oxZQqV ij vkosnd ds iq= jkts'k dqekj }kjk edku fuekZ.k djkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA pwafd mijksDr laifRr IykV ua0 38@1 ,oa 38@3 vkosnd jes'k panz ds iwoZtksa dh gSA Jh jes'kpUnz ds firk o`) voLFkk esa vukosnd mlds gd dk vf/kdkj ugha j[krk gS rFkk LovftZr laifRr ij Hkh vukosnd dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha curh gSA vukosnd ds firk dh vftZr Hkwfe ls n[ky Hkh ugha fd;k tkrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa dkGst jksM+ eqaxokuh jksM+ HkSjksxat IykV ua0 15x85=1775 oxZQqV [k0ua0 22@16 jdck 0-012 gsa0 vukosnd jkts'k dqekj rkezdkj dks thou&;kiu djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k tkrk gSA 'ks"k laifRr ij vkosnd dk lokfeRo gd jgsxkA izdj.k esa lqyg vf/kdkjh dk tkap izfrosnu esa ;g izfrosnu fd;k x;k gS fd vkosnd jes'k pUnz rkezdkj }kjk mlds 'kkldh; lsokdky ds nkSjku fnukad 24-12-2009 dks iathd`r cSukek ds vk/kkj ij vukosnd jkts'k dqekj rkezdkj ds uke ls Ø; fd;k x;k gS ftlesa orZeku esa vukosnd dk dCtk ,oa ifjokj lfgr fuokljr~ gSA vkosnd }kjk mBk;k x;k ;g eqn~nk fd vukosnd jkts'k dqekj ds uke ls iathd`r cSukek ds vk/kkj ij o"kZ 2009 esa Ø; fd;k x;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr iathd`r cSukek lEifRr dks 'kwU; fd;k tkuk dk eqn~nk bl U;k;ky; esa fopkj.kh; gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vkosnd }kjk mDr ifjlEifRr;ksa dks izdj.k vkjaHk gksus ds iwoZ vukosnd jkts'k rkezdkj ds uke ls iathd`r cSukek ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a dj iathd`r djk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosnd }kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&23 ds rgr mBk;k x;k eqn~nk vius Lo;a ds va'k o LoRo dk fujkdj.k djus gsrq flfoy U;k;kG; tkus gsrq Lora= gSaA blds vfrfjDr vkosnd ds ikl orZeku esa Ø;'kqnk lEifRr;ka tcyiqj@fNUnokM+k ftGs esa /kkfjr gksuk ik;h tkrh gS rFkk mldh iSfr`d lEifRr;ka 38@1 ,oa 38@3 vfrfjDr :i ls /kkfjr fd;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gSA pwafd vkosnd cSad ls lsokfuo`Rr deZpkjh gksus ls mlds thou ;kiu bR;kfn gsrq i;kZIr lEifRr;ka Hkh gksuk ik;h tkrh gSA** 6. There being no cogent material being commended at to demolish the findings arrived by the Collector as to entitlement of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of facts. 7. The next issue is as to whether with the provisions such as Section 5 of 2007 Act it was within the jurisdiction of the Collector to have entertained the complaint. The answer, in the considered opinion of this Court lies in the provisions contained under Section 22 read with Rule 19 of 2009 Rules. That Section 22 of Act of 2007 provides for the Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of the Act of 2007 it stipulates : "22. Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of this Act.- The State Government may, confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary, to ensure that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the District Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as may be prescribed. (2) The State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens." 8. Furthermore, Section 32 of 2007 Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act of 2007. Clause (e) of sub-Section (2) of Section 32 envisages that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 32, the rules may provide for the powers and duties of the Authorities for implementing the provisions of the Act of 2007, under sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the Act of 2007. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 has framed the Rules viz. The Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. Clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provides for that : "19. Duties and powers of the District Magistrate - (1) ... The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 has framed the Rules viz. The Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. Clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provides for that : "19. Duties and powers of the District Magistrate - (1) ... (2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to - (i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity;" 9. Fair reading of these provisions makes it clear that, it is within the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain an application under Section 22 to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District Magistrate are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. This view find support from the decision by the Division Bench, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab CWP No.24508 of 2015 (O & M) decided on 01.12.2015; wherein, it is held by the learned Bench : " ... Section 22 falling in Chapter V of the Act enjoins a duty upon State Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 32 (2) (f) also empowers the State Government to frame Rules in respect of comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. In terms of such provisions, the Rules have been framed which causes a duty on the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with a sense of security and dignity. Apart from framing such Rules, the Action Plan for protection of life and property of the senior citizens has been a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy the possession of the property licensed but without creating any interest in the property. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in part of the property. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in part of the property. Such property owned by respondent No.4 is required to be protected as mandated by Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Rules and para 1 of the Action Plan. There cannot be any effective protection of property of the senior citizen unless the District Magistrate has the power to put the senior citizen into possession of the property and/or to restrain or eject the person who wishes to interfere in the possession of the property of the senior citizen. Protection of the property of a senior citizen includes all incidences, rights and obligations in respect of property in question. Once a senior citizen makes a complaint to District Magistrate against his son to vacate the premises of which the son is a licensee, such summary procedure will ensure for the benefit of the senior citizen. The petitioner would have no right to resist his eviction only on the ground that the Act does not contemplate eviction of an occupant. Eviction is one part of the right to protect the property of a senior citizen which right could be exercised by a senior citizen in terms of provisions of the statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified within the jurisdiction of the Act in terms of Section 27 thereof. Since, the protection of life and property fall within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, therefore, the District Magistrate is competent authority to take steps for the protection of life and property of the senior citizen. However, we may say that such summary exercise of the jurisdiction is without prejudice to the rights of the parties which may be determined by the Civil Court in accordance with law. The argument that the order of eviction was ex-parte, passed without giving any opportunity of hearing is misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with a notice. The petitioner has not appeared before the District Magistrate assuming the said day to be non-working day. The argument that the order of eviction was ex-parte, passed without giving any opportunity of hearing is misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with a notice. The petitioner has not appeared before the District Magistrate assuming the said day to be non-working day. Once the petitioner was served and has chosen not to appear on the given date and time, the consequences have to be suffered by the petitioner alone. Still further we find that eviction is sought to be resisted on wholly untenable grounds even in the present writ petition." 10. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Division Bench in respect of the scope of Section 22 of 2007 Act. 11. In the case at hand, since there is uncontroverted finding by the Collector as to the fact that respondent No.4 is wrongly deprived of his right and dignified living, no indulgence is caused. 12. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. No costs.