The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 provide protection to senior citizens from ill-treatment and non-maintenance by their children, allowing for eviction orders to safeguard the elderly parents.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD (Appellate Authority) in Appeal No.435/2022 affirming the Order of eviction dated 21.12.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, District South-West in Case No.1/40/2021 in the case of "Jagdish Prasad Randev vs. Ashish Randev and Anr." under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `Senior Citizens Act, 2007') read with the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 as amended from time to time.

2. The Respondent No.5 herein filed an application under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 before the District Magistrate, District South-West seeking eviction of the Petitioners herein from the property bearing C-2/53, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are as under:

a) Petitioner No.1 is the son and Petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, at present is more than 90 years of age and was 88 years old when the complaint was filed. Respondent No.5 is staying with his wife, who was 84 years old at the time when the complaint was filed, on the ground floor of the premises in question i.e., C-2 Block GF of House No. 53, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 (hereinafter referred to as "property in question"). The said property was purchased by Respondent No.5 in his own name.

b) It is stated in the petition that the property in question consists of two floors, namely, ground floor and first floor. It is stated that a portion of the ground floor consisting of two rooms was being used by the Petitioners herein and the daughter of Respondent No.5. It is stated that on the ground floor, a school was being run by the daughter and wife of Respondent No.5. It is stated that the Petitioners herein, who are the son and the daughter-in-law of the Respondent No.5, used to fight constantly with the couple i.e., Respondent No.5 and his wife, demanding ownership of the ground floor of the property in question.

c) Material on record indicates that Respondent No.5 filed a police complaint dated 22.02.2021 against his son and the daughter-in-law in Police Station, Janakpuri alleging that he is being harassed by them. The complaint dated 22.02.2021 is on record.

d) The Respondent No.5, thereafter, filed a petition before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Dwarka) seeking appropriate action against his son and the daughter-in-law. The petition states that the Respondent No.5 is very old and weak and his wife is also bed ridden. It is stated in the petition that the school was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Respondent No.5 and his wife due to their old age wanted to reside on the ground floor which was not to the liking of the son and the daughter-in-law of the Respondent No.5.

e) The Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, District-South West vide Order dated 21.12.2021 directed that the Petitioners herein should be evicted from the property in question. The Petitioners, thereafter, challenged the said Order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal before the Appellate Authority of Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD. The Appellate Authority vide Order dated 05.05.2022 affirmed the Order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal.

f) It is this Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. Notice was issued in the petition on 17.05.2023. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.5.

5. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Respondent No.5 is more than 90 years of age. The property in question is a self acquired property of Respondent No.5. Material on record indicates that Respondent No.5 filed a complaint against