The importance of maintaining peace and tranquillity between the parties during the pendency of the appeal and the significance of upholding the direction of the District Magistrate and the status quo.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17th January, 2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD by which the Divisional Commissioner has stayed the order of eviction passed by the District Magistrate (North-West) ( hereinafter, "DM") dated 17th November, 2022.

3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter in law of the Petitioner and are not residing in the Petitioner's property bearing no. D-7/378, Sector- 6, Rohini, Delhi-110086 ( hereinafter, "suit property"). However, by taking advantage of the impugned order, they are making attempts to encroach and to enter the suit property. He further submits that the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

4. A perusal of the eviction order dated 17th November, 2022 passed by the DM would show that the DM had come to the conclusion that there was harassment of the Petitioner and had directed eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The relevant portion of the eviction order is set out below:

"Thus as discussed above it is a fit case to pass the orders against the respondents and respondents are directed to evict from the above mentioned property and directed to handover peaceful vacant possession to the applicant with 30 days from receiving of this order and respondents are further directed not to encroach/ enter into any portion of the property belongs to the applicant and shall it create any hassles in the peaceful life of the applicant and further restrained themselves from causing any mental tension, threats and harassment to the applicant, as it is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure the life and property of the senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. Further in case of danger to life or property of a senior citizen, it is the duty of District Magistrate to protect the same"

5. The order of the DM has been stayed in the appeal by the Divisional Commissioner. In the impugned order the Divisional Commissioner has observed as under:

3. Appellants/applicants stated that they are residing separately at the second floor of the property in question whereas the respondent along with her husband is residing at ground floor and younger son of the respondent is residing at the first floor of the property in question along with his family. It is stated that the property in question is also the shared house hold of the appellant/applicant no. 2 and evicting her from the same is barred under the Domestic Violence Act in terms of S. Vanitha Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

4. On the other hand, the respondent argued that she is the absolute owner of the property in question and is victim of ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the appellants. She argued that the appellants have been pressurizing them to transfer the property in question in their name and when refused, the family members of the appellant/applicant no. 2 came to her house and misbehaved and mentally and physically abused her, her younger son and his wife against which even a complaint was made but no action was taken. Respondent submitted that the appellants/applicants threatened her to implicate in false criminal cases. It is contended that the appellant/applicant no. 1 has stopped paying EMIs of the house which he was regularly paying earlier. She alleged that appellants are not taking care of her and have occupied 2nd floor of the property in question. She has even disowned and debarred the appellants from her movable / immovable properties and prayed for the dismissal of the stay application.

5. Arguments on the stay application have been carefully considered. The respondent has recognized that Appellant/applicant no. 1 was paying the regular EMIs of the housing loan against the property in que