The main legal principle established is that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are focused on the welfare and protection of senior citizens, and are not meant to decide the title of the property. Any right or interest in the property should be established through proper proceedings in a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The instant Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 10736/ 2022. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition refusing to interfere with the Order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, thereby confirming the Order of the learned District Magistrate (West) dated 24.09.2018 whereby the learned District Magistrate (West) had directed the Appellants herein to vacate the house bearing No. T-688, Gali No. 21, near Hanuman Mandir, Baljit Nagar, New Delhi-110008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘property in question’).

2. The brief facts leading to this instant LPA are as under:

(a) That the Appellants No. 1 & 3 and Respondent No. 3 are the sons of the Respondent No. 2. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of Appellant No. 1. The Appellants herein are aggrieved by the Impugned Order and Order of Respondent No. 1 dated 30.06.2022 passed in Appeal No. 72/2019/1228-1232 under Rule 22 (3) (4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

(b) It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 and his sons along with their families have been residing in separate portions of the property in question, as demarcated between the families. It is stated that in 1995, the Respondent No. 2 gave one portion of the house to Appellant No. 1, and gave him liberty to construct and develop the area, for his residence. Appellant No. 2, i.e. wife of Appellant No. 1, constructed three floors where they live with their family. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 live in their demarcated area of the property without interfering in the property of the other parties herein. Respondent No. 3 and his family are residing with Respondent No. 2. After allotting the property to Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 2 had also allotted a portion of land in the subject property to his other sons.

(c) It is stated that the Appellants have been residing in their portion of the subject property for the past 24 years and the same can be substantiated on the basis of the electricity and water connections taken on their names.

(d) It is stated that on 04.03.2003, a settlement agreement was entered into between the parties, duly witnessed by 5 members of their locality. In terms of the said settlement, Respondent No. 2 has given the southern part of the property, till gate no. 1, to Appellant No. 3 herein and Appellant No. 3 had constructed and developed the said area with his own money for his residence. Vide the family settlement dated 04.03.2022, relevant portions of the subject property were demarcated to the Appellants for their use.

(e) It is stated that in 2018, Respondent No. 2, a senior citizen of about 86 years of age, filed an Eviction Petition, being. EVICTION (54)/DCW/2018 under Section 5 read with 2(F) of the Maintenance and Care of Senior Citizens and Parents Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Senior Citizens Act’) before the District Magistrate (West), seeking eviction of his two sons, i.e. Appellants No. 1 & 3. The eviction petition was filed on the ground that Appellants No. 1 & 3 were not maintaining and taking care of their old father. Vide Order dated 24.09.2018, District Magistrate (West) had directed the Appellants herein to vacate the subject property on the ground of ill-treatment and non-maintenance of Respondent No. 2 herein.

(f) Aggrieved by the Order dated 24.09.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, the Appellants herein filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who is the Appellate Authority under the Rules. Before the Divisional Magistrate, it was contended that the property in question, from which the Appellants herein are sought to be evicted, is neither a self-acquired property of the Respondent No. 2 nor is it ancestral property of the Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, Appellants canno