JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Factual background:

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Ms. Shuchi Goel challenging the order dated 27th October, 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (hereinafter, "DC"), Department of Revenue, GNCTD. Vide the said order, the DC dismissed the appeal against the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate (East) (hereinafter, "the DM") dated 25th February 2021 under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter, "2009 Rules"). The said order of the DM arose out of a petition bearing no. Eviction No. 218/2019 filed by Respondent No. 1-Smt. Shashi Goel who is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner.

3. The DM directed the Petitioner to vacate the premises bearing House No. 261, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar-II, New Delhi-110091 ("said premises") belonging to Respondent No. 1. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 reside in the said premises. Respondent No. 2-Mr. Vikram Goel-the husband of Petitioner and the son of Respondent No. 1, reside in a separate property in Gurgaon with their minor daughter.

4. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were married in 2005 and, thereafter, it is the case of the Respondent No.1, that her son and the Petitioner had shifted various premises between 2006 to 2018 owing to his jobs. The case of Respondent No. 2 before the DM was, that the Petitioner had made baseless allegations and had instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "DV Act") after the matrimonial discord had occurred between them.

Submissions of parties:

5. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, present along with the Petitioner, is that the ld. MM, Mahila Court-02, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide order dated 24th May 2019 in the proceedings under the DV Act, has directed Respondent No. 2 to pay interim maintenance to the Petitioner. Further, vide order dated 2nd August 2021, the ld. MM, Mahila Court directed that the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed till the disposal of the application under the DV Act, except in accordance with procedure established by law.

6. It is, further, submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was directed in W.P.(C) 14863/2021, titled `Shuchi Goel v. Shashi Goel' vide order dated 22nd December, 2021 to offer alternate accommodation which has not been offered.

7. In addition, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner does not live with Respondent No. 2 and their daughter, and since the custody of her daughter is also with Respondent No.2 and thus, she is entitled to stay in the matrimonial home/said premises. She is now alone and does not wish to move away from the in-laws.

8. Ld. counsel also relies upon the objects and reasons behind the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, "Senior Citizens Act") to argue that the Senior Citizens Act does not provide for a mechanism for eviction and thus, no eviction order can be passed under the said Act by the DM or the DC. Thus, according to the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, the order of the DC, thus, completely lacks jurisdiction and the Petitioner cannot be evicted from the said premises.

9. The Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., [2020 SCC OnLine 1023] to argue that the right of the Petitioner to secure residence order under the DV Act in respect of the said premises cannot be defeated by the eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Reliance is also placed on Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, [(2022) 8 SCC 90], where the Supreme Court has held that a woman cannot be evicted from the shared household under section 17 of the DV Act.

10. In addition to above, in the written submissions filed by the parties on 27th March 2023, the Petitioner also sub