Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Pooja Mehta and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
LPA 12 of 2025 and CM Appl. 960 of 2025
Decided on 27.5.2025
For the Appellants:Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Mr. Harsh Khanna, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Jain, Ms. Manya Hasija, Mr. Sandeep Khanna, Ms. Tejasvi Gupta, Mr. Yatharth Gupta and Mr. T. Illoyrasu, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC for GNCTD
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Vivek Chib, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Ms. Priya Pathania and Mr. Abdul Hasan Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Vansh Chawla, Ms. Shruti Khosla, Mr. Manoj Loomba and Ms. Nitika Kohli, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of her shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 4 and 22 – Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 – Rule 22(3)(1) – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 17 and 19 – Eviction from shared household – DV Act seeks to achieve certain objects, including object of protecting rights of women to secure housing – Act also aims to provide for right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in such home or household – Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of her shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act – In the event that a composite dispute is alleged where suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by law, it would be appropriate for Tribunal constituted under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing competing claims of parties claiming under PWDV Act, 2005 and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Non-communication of ground on which eviction order is proposed to be made in itself causes a serious prejudice to person against whom such an order is proposed as it deprives him of opportunity to submit his explanation to the basis of such opinion formed by DM – Senior citizen has been residing since fairly a long time and accordingly, she has ample interest in subject property, though it may not be ancestral or self-acquired by her – DM has ample jurisdiction to entertain and draw proceedings for eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) of 2009 Rules in instant case – Proceedings of petition/application made under Rule 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 revived and restored to the file of the DM. (Paras 21, 38, 49, 55, 61 and 64)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J.—
Challenge: -
This intra-court appeal seeks exception to the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby, W.P. (C) 4643/2021, preferred by the appellant no.1 against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority under Rule 22 (3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Rules) and has been disposed of with certain directions.
By the order dated 31.03.2021, the appeals preferred by the appellant no.1 and the respondent no.3 against the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate (South), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “DM”) were dismissed. We may note at this juncture that the DM vide his order dated 18.09.2020 had allowed the petition preferred by the respondent no.2 and her husband, late Vijay Mehta and ordered eviction of the appellants and respondent no.3 from the subject property, i.e. Sai Naman, Aster Estate, Khasra No.638, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
Facts: -
2. Appellant no.1 is the daughter-in-law of the respondent no.2 and her husband late Vijay Mehta. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the children of appellant no.1 from her earlier marriage. Respondent no.3 is the husband of appellant no.1, who married each other on 06.10.2013.
3. Further facts which can be gathered from the pleadings available on record are that after her marriage, the appellant no.1 has been residing at the “shared household” (the subject property) with respondent no.2 (mother-in-law) and late Vijay Mehta (father-in-law). It is alleged that after about five years of the second marriage of appellant no.1 and respondent no.3, tensions surfaced between respondent no.3 and his father, late Vijay Mehta, over a piece of land which is said to have later became subject matter of litigation in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) No. 309/2018 before this Court, wherein an order was passed on 01.08.2018 directing the respondent no.3 to deposit a sum of Rs.2.05 Crores with the Registry of this Court before proceeding for alienation of the said land.
4. The record available before us on this appeal reveals that since May 2018, certain incidents are said to have taken place which resulted into lodging of FIRs. It is to note that the appellant no.1 lodged an FIR No. 209/2018 under Section 323, 354, 506, 509 of IPC against her father-in-law, late Vijay Mehta, at Police Station Naraina. Late Vijay Mehta also lodged FIRs against appellant no.1 (daughter-in-law) with the allegations of apprehension of physical harm at Police Stations Naraina and Mehrauli. Another FIR was lodged by late Vijay Mehta (father-in-law) bearing no. 754/2018 against the appellant no.1 (daughter-in-law) and respondent no.3 (son) with the allegations of theft.
5. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”) by the appellant no.1 before the Mahila Court (South District), Saket, New Delhi. On the said complaint, the Mahila Court passed a protection order in favour of the appellant no.1 restraining the respondents in the said complaint, which included the respondent no.2 and her husband late Vijay Mehta, from dispossessing the appellant no.1 from the property in question, without following due process of law. Certain proceedings in the form of CO.PET. 02/2019 were also instituted before National Company Law Tribunal by Mr. Gautam Mehta (brother of respondent no.3) against the appellant no.1 and respondent no.3 with the allegations of mismanagement of the affairs of family business which is in the name of M/s. Mehta Offset Private Limited. The National Company Law Tribunal by means of an order dated 30.01.2019, granted an order for maintaining status quo regarding the shareholding and composition of the Board of Directors of the Company.
6. Respondent no.2 and her husband late Vijay Mehta thereafter filed a pet
