JUDGMENT

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

2. The parties are present in Court. The dispute between Petitioner No. 1-Ms. Anu Banka and the Respondent No.1-Ms. Suman Lata Gupta is in respect of the property bearing House no. F-184-185, Block-F, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 (`said premises') which was earlier belonging to late Ms. Hemlata and her husband (`the deceased').

3. The contesting parties in this matter are, daughter of the deceased-Ms. Anu Banka on the one hand, and on the other hand, Ms.Suman Lata Gupta, who is the sister of the deceased and is the Massi of the Petitioner no.1.

4. The grievance of the Petitioners i.e., Ms. Anu Banka and her husband Md. Younis arise from the order dated 30th January 2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, GNCTD, declining the grant of stay on the Eviction Order dated 23rd September 2022. Vide order dated 23rd September 2022, District Magistrate (Shahdara) had directed the Petitioners to vacate the said premises.

5. A petition bearing Eviction No. 55/2019 titled `Suman Lata Gupta v. Smt. Annu Bank & Anr.' filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (`2007 Act') was preferred by the Respondent No. 1 under which the eviction order dated 23rd September 2022 has been passed. Further, vide order dated 30th January 2023, the stay on eviction was declined by the Divisional Commissioner, with the following observations:

"2. Appellant No. 1 claims a will from her father. On the other hand the respondent claims the property on the basis of registered GPA and unregistered sale agreement executed by Smt. Hemlata, mother of appellant no. 1. Clearly it is a property dispute unless the court of competent jurisdiction settles the title. At present the appellants are residing in the suit property and are allegedly not allowing the respondent to enter into the property. The property has 3 floors. It is unjust that appellants should monopolise the property in question and completely bar the respondent from the property. In view of the above, the stay is declined. The matter shall be heard on the merits on 1st February 2023"

6. As per the Petitioners, they were in possession of the entire said premises and during the proceedings one room was given to the Respondent No. 1 for her to live there. The Respondent No. 2-SDM-Seemapuri, who is present in Court submits that till 8th February, 2023, the Petitioner was in the possession of the said premises. However, on the said date, the eviction has been effected pursuant to the order dated 30th January 2023 and now the possession of the said premises is deemed to be with Respondent No. 1-Mrs. Suman Lata Gupta. However, the belongings and the moveables of the Petitioners continue to lie in the said premises.

7. As on today, therefore, the Petitioners are not living in the said premises. As per the SDM-Seemapuri, the entire property is with Respondent No. 1-Ms. Suman Lata Gupta and with Mr. Raju Banka, the son of the deceased, late Mrs. Hem Lata and the brother of the Petitioner no.1, who has now entered the picture.

8. In the present petition, Respondent No. 1-Ms. Suman Lata Gupta relies upon two registered GPAs dated 10th June, 2005, by which Respondent No.1 has been appointed as the attorney of late Ms. Hemlata. On the other hand, the Petitioner No. 1 relies upon a will dated 15th January, 1994 with respect to property bearing no. F-185, which is not a registered will and bears only one witness. The Petitioner also claims rights in the said premises also through succession from the owner of the said premises, i.e. the deceased mother.

9. Clearly, in respect of the property, the disputes are between the Respondent No.1-sister of the deceased on the one hand and the Petitioner No. 1-daughter of the deceased on the other hand. The Respondent no.1 has a registered GPA in her favour and the Petitioner claims an unregistered will as also rights through succe