The court emphasized the protection of senior citizens' interests, the obligation to provide shelter for the daughter-in-law, and the need to balance the rights of the parties under the relevant statutes and case law.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present is an unfortunate case which demonstrates the manner in which children are harassing the parents in respect of the parents' property, even while being of sufficient means and not even in need of the same.

3. The parents Petitioner No. 1-Shri Suresh Chander Sharma and the Petitioner No. 2-Smt. Shashi Prabha Sharma have filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 15th September, 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (‘DC’). By the said order, the Eviction Order passed by the District Magistrate (South West) (‘DM’) dated 22nd January, 2021 under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter, “2009 Rules”) has been partially modified. Vide the said order, the DM had directed Respondent No. 2-Ms. Jyoti Sharma and Mr. Paras Sharma-her husband to vacate the property bearing no. C-4C/316, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 (‘said premises’). However, in appeal, the eviction qua the son has been upheld and the eviction order qua the daughter in law has been set aside.

4. The Petitioners had preferred a complaint under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, “Senior Citizens Act”) on 22nd February, 2020 against Mr. Paras Sharma, son of the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 - Ms. Jyoti Sharma, daughter in law. A joint reply dated 8th October 2020 was filed by them before the DM, and vide order dated 22nd January, 2021, the DM had passed the Eviction Order in the following terms.

“On perusal of the facts and circumstances of the present case and after hearing the contentions of both the parties, as well as taking into consideration of report of the SDM (HQ) and above mentioned judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is observed that the complainants have been physically as well as mentally tortured by the respondents. Further, the respondents have failed to give any proper and justifiable ground/logical reasons to remain/reside in the “property” which is self acquired by the complainants.

CONCLUSION:

In view of the above, this court directs the respondents to vacate the property bearing no. C-4C/316, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.

The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful living & possession of the “property” of the complainants and also not to cause any physical or verbal harassment to the complainant and his family.

The SDM (Dwarka) and the Concerned SHO, are directed to render the requisite assistance to the appellant in the execution of these orders.”

5. The clear finding of the DM was that the parents were physically as well as mentally tortured by the son and daughter in law, and there is no reason for them to remain in the said premises owned by the Petitioners, which is a self-acquired property.

6. The Respondents filed an appeal against the said order of the DM before the DC, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2021. The Respondent No. 2-daughter in law, however, relied upon the orders passed by the ld. MM (Mahila Court, Dwarka) on 19th July, 2021 in the matter titled Jyoti Sharma v. Suresh Chandra Sharma bearing MC No. 353/20 wherein the stay of the DM order was granted by the ld. Mahila Court by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023]. Under such circumstances, the eviction was restricted to the son-Mr. Paras Sharma and in respect of the Respondent No. 2-daughter-in-law, the eviction order was set aside. The operative portion of the order dated 15th September 2021 of the DC is set out below:

“13. The respondents i.e. the parents specifically pleaded that they are victims of ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the appellants and they are not even allowed to enter their own house which is a self-acquired property of the respondents and on one