The Divisional Commissioner's decision was influenced by the acrimonious relationship between the parties, the inability for them to live in the same property, and the direction for the respondent to pay rent to the appellant.

JUDGMENT

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

CAV 183/2023

2. The caveat is discharged, as the caveator has appeared.

W.P.(C) 4498/2023 & CM APPLs.17194 (interim stay), 17195/2023 (for exemption)

3. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 22nd March, 2023.

4. The background of the case is that a complaint was filed before the District Magistrate by Respondent No.2-the father-in-law of the Petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking her eviction from property bearing Plot No.698, Akshardham Apartment, Sector-19, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter `subject property'). By order dated 23rd February, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate, the Petitioner was directed to vacate the subject property. An application seeking stay of the said order was filed before the Divisional Commissioner along with an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate.

5. By way of the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the stay application in the appeal challenging the District Magistrate's order dated 23rd February, 2023. Also, vide the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.25,000/- as monthly rent to the Petitioner.

6. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has a right to peacefully live in the subject property on the fourth floor and that the amount of Rs.25,000/- would be insufficient for her to find an alternate premises.

7. On behalf of Respondent No.2, it is submitted that completely baseless and unlawful allegations have been raised against the said Respondent which has repeatedly resulted in litigations between the parties. Criminal complaints are also stated to have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2. In fact, the said Respondent has been forced to move out from the subject property because of the ill-treatment which has been meted to him.

8. During the course of arguments, it has been revealed that the Petitioner has in fact rented out other floors of the subject property and this fact was not revealed in the writ petition. She has also been receiving rents from the tenants residing in the other floors of the subject property.

9. The Petitioner is present in Court and her statement has been recorded which reads as under:

I reside on the fourth floor of the property at Plot No. 698, Akshardham Apartment, Sector-19, Pocket-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter "Subject property"). There are two tenants living on the second floor and third floor of the subject property. My father-in-law had asked me to sign the rent agreements with the said tenants. I am collecting the rent from said tenants. (A rent agreement dated 4th February, 2022 executed between Ms. Sheena Tomar and Ms. Radhika in respect of the third floor of the subject property marked as `Exhibit R-1' was shown to the Petitioner at this stage). I have seen the document marked as `Exhibit R-1'. I admit that the signature on the said document are mine.

I had informed my counsel about the fact that the subject property was given on rent."

10. From the Petitioner's statement, it is clear that she has in fact executed rent agreements with the tenants and is enjoying the rent from the remaining floors of the subject property.

11. The Divisional Commissioner's order is clear to the effect that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 cannot live in the same property. In fact, the said Respondent has been forced to move out of the subject property and live with his daughter. Under such circumstances, the Divisional Commissioner has observed as under:

"6. On perusal of the documents placed on record and the submissions/arguments of both the sides, this appellate authority is of the view that there is a dispute between two sides. On one side are respondent no. 1, her younger son and daughter and on oth