The court upheld the eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, emphasizing the protection of senior citizens' rights and the validity of concurrent factual findings from authorities.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Delhi Rules 2009 - Challenges to eviction orders - Petitioner challenged the order of eviction by the Appellate Authority under the referenced Act, asserting property rights as a co-owner. (Para 3)

(B) Welfare legislation emphasis - The court emphasized that the Act is for the protection and welfare of senior citizens, underscoring that eviction must respect these statutory provisions. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, post the suicide of her husband, faced eviction at the behest of her father-in-law alleging ill-treatment and harassment. The District Magistrate confirmed this eviction based on the father's ownership of the property and additional allegations against the petitioner. (Para 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found concurrent factual findings by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner to be justifiable, affirming the father's right to reside peacefully in his property. (Para 10)

Issues: The core issues were the petitioner's claim of ownership, the circumstances surrounding eviction, and the validity of claims regarding harassment. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the findings of fact from both authorities, reinforcing the necessity for proper deference to lower court rulings unless shown to be significantly erroneous or perverse. (Para 9)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eviction proceedings under senior citizen welfare laws. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. concurrent findings of evictions are valid. (Para 6 , 8)
3. judicial discretion limited in eviction challenges. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. court encourages expedient handling of appeals. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

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

2. The present petition has been filed by Ms. Mamta, the Petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.4 - Mr. S. Krishnan Nath Rao, challenging the impugned order dated 12th April, 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority of the Divisional Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and Delhi Rules thereto.

3. The brief background is that the Petitioner was married to Respondent No.4's son - Late Mr. Sunder Ganesh Rao, who is stated to have committed suicide on 19th July, 2019. Initially, the Respondent No.4 had filed a petition for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, which was decided by the District Magistrate vide order dated 30th January/1st February, 2021. The findings of the District Magistrate in the said order were that the Respondent No.4 is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. The observation of the District Magistrate was that the Petitioner lived in the suit property i.e., House No.4, Gali No.15B, Prem Vihar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi along with her associate (boy friend) and in effect, the Respondent No.4 was not being allowed to live in his own property. The District Magistrate had accordingly directed the Petitioner herein to vacate the said suit property. The findings of the District Magistrate are set out herein below:

"1. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a Registered GPA dated 19.10.2006.

2. The only defense taken by the respondents is that she only exhibited only a copy of GPA in respect of the suit property, which has no legal value.

3. That the complainant is being harassed by the respondent and her family.

4. That the respondent along with her associates (boy friend Sachin S/o unknown, mother Subhlata W/o Late Balwan) are residing in the suit property without any legal right.

xxx xxx xxxx

In view of the above observations, this court directs the respondents to vacate the property bearing House No. 4, Gali No. 158, Prem Vihar, Nagli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi.

The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful living & possession of the complainant in the suit property.

The SDM (Dwarka) to and the SHO concerned are directed to execute the present order.

This order should be executed after 30 days in terms of the Rule 22 Sub rule 3 Clause 3 of the Senior Citizen Rules 2009."

4. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner. Vide the impugned order dated 12th April 2021, the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the prayer for stay of the order of the District Magistrate on the following grounds:

"2. In reply, respondent argued that he is a senior citizen and out from his own house. He argued that the appellant is having extra marital affair/illicit relation with some other person due to which his elder son i.e. husband of the appellant committed suicide after caught appellant with some other person in a compromising position. He further argued that she and her associate has removed his articles7against which he had made written complaint to the police. He stated that he was beaten up by the appellant and her associate when he caught red handed just after 13 days of the death of his son.

3. I have gone through the stay application and heard the parties on the stay application and also perused the impugned order.

4. The District Magistrate vide impugned order observed that her associate/boyfriend is residing in the suit property without any legal right. DM evicted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document