The appeal filed by the son and daughter-in-law should be decided by the Divisional Commissioner within three months. The mother should maintain the status quo and the police should submit the videography and relevant documents of the eviction to the Divisional Commissioner.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Both these petitions relate to a dispute between Respondent No. 3-Ms. Urmila Yadav, the mother of the Petitioners on the one hand and the Petitioners Mr. Amit Yadav, son and Ms. Priyanka Yadav, daughter-in-law of Ms. Urmila Yadav on the other hand. The subject premises over which the dispute has arisen is C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. The admitted position between the parties is that the Petitioners were residing in the ground floor of the property and the mother was living on the first floor of the property.

3. The Respondent No. 3 had filed a complaint under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2017 read with Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 26th August, 2020 seeking eviction of the Petitioners. There are civil suits which are pending between the parties including the sisters of the Petitioner before the District Courts.

4. In the complaint under the Senior Citizens Act, the District Magistrate (DM) passed the impugned order dated 1st February, 2021 directing the Petitioners to vacate the subject property within 30 days. However, the DM, simultaneously, directed that in view of the various litigations which are pending, the subject property shall not be sold by the mother. The said direction is set out below:

"Needless to mention that, this order does not allow the applicant to sell, alienate, transfer or create third party in the property no. C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar until the adjudication of dispute is done by the Hon'ble court and such judgment attained finality thereafter.

xxxxx

Now, the opposite party may raise plea that eviction order should not be passed for concern of opposite party(s) and their minor kid. But, if such this plea are allowed to be considered in routine manner then subsequently in every such case the elder parents will have to face burden of their son(s) and daughter in law, and legal heir for non-maintenance and ill-treatment and no order for eviction would be passed. This is not the Scheme of the act and it is meant for welfare of parents and senior citizens. The Senior citizens do have a right to enjoy peaceful possession of property which is protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizens Act, 2007 (as amended up to date) act and rules under Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

Therefore, I am of the view that since this is a case of ill-treatment and misbehaviour with the applicant by the opposite parties, it would be appropriate to pass an eviction order against the opposite party(s) Amit Yadav and Priyanka Yadav. As per records, a minor son is living with support of parents i.e. opposite parties and present order of eviction is also applicable to minor kid, in the light of settled legal position as discussed in Writ Petition. (C) 347/2018, AARSHYA GULATI (THROUGH: NEXT FRIEND MRS, DIVYA GULATI) AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELKI AND Ors. decided by Hon'ble High court of Delhi vide order dated 30.05.2019.

I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016 & The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017, hereby direct the opposite parties namely Sh. Amit Yadav and Smt. Priyanka Yadav to vacate the part of property in question i.e. House No:C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 within 30 days from the date of this order and handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the applicant.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, District-North East shall take coercive measures to enforce the eviction order through SHO concerned to handover the possession of property-in-question to the applicant within 07 days, if the opposite parties failed to evict the premises on their own within the time specified a