IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Pawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner Department of Revenue Govt. of Delhi - Respondent
LPA 525 of 2022 & CM Appl. 40226 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against dismissal of writ petition (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of family residential arrangements (Para 2) |
| 3. appellants' arguments on property ownership (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent's contention on harassment by appellants (Para 4) |
| 5. background of legal proceedings regarding eviction (Para 5) |
| 6. summary of senior citizens act objectives (Para 6) |
| 7. nature of proceedings under senior citizens act (Para 9 , 10) |
| 8. court affirms need for elderly protection (Para 12) |
| 9. conclusion of dismissal of appeal (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The instant Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned Order'), passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 10736/2022. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition refusing to interfere with the Order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, thereby confirming the Order of the learned District Magistrate (West) dated 24.09.2018 whereby the learned District Magistrate (West) had directed the Appellants herein to vacate the house bearing No. T-688, Gali No. 21, near Hanuman Mandir, Baljit Nagar, New Delhi - 110008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'property in question').
2. The brief facts leading to this instant LPA are as under :
a. That the Appellants No. 1 & 3 and Respondent No. 3 are the sons of the Respondent No. 2. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of Appellant No. 1. The Appellants herein are aggrieved by the Impugned Order and Order of Respondent No. 1 dated 30.06.2022 passed in Appeal No. 72/2019/1228-1232 under Rule 22 (3) (4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
b. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 and his sons along with their families have been residing in separate portions of the property in question, as demarcated between the families. It is stated that in 1995, the Respondent No. 2 gave one portion of the house to Appellant No. 1, and gave him liberty to construct and develop the area, for his residence. Appellant No. 2, i.e. wife of Appellant No. 1, constructed three floors where they live with their family. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 live in their demarcated area of the property without interfering in the property of the other parties herein. Respondent No. 3 and his family are residing with Respondent No. 2. After allotting the property to Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 2 had also allotted a portion of land in the subject property to his other sons.
c. It is stated that the Appellants have been residing in their portion of the subject property for the past 24 years and the same can be substantiated on the basis of the electricity and water connections taken on their names.
d. It is stated that on 04.03.2003, a settlement agreement was entered into between the parties, duly witnessed by 5 members of their locality. In terms of the said settlement, Respondent No. 2 has given the southern part of the property, till gate no. 1, to Appellant No. 3 herein and Appellant No. 3 had constructed and developed the said area with his own money for his residence. Vide the family settlement dated 04.03.2022, relevant portions of the subject property were demarcated to the Appellants for their use.
e. It is stated that in 2018, Respondent No. 2, a senior citizen of about 86 years of age, filed an Eviction Petition, being. EVICTION (54)/DCW/2018 under Section 5 read with 2(F) of the Maintenance and Care of Senior Citizens and Parents Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Senior Citizens Act') before the District Magistrate (West), seeking eviction of his two sons, i.e. Appellants No. 1 & 3. The eviction petition was filed on the ground that Appellants No.1 & 3 were not maintaining and taking care of their old father. Vide Order dated 24.09.2018, District Magistrate (West) had directed the Appellants herein to vacate the subject property on the ground of ill-treatme
The Senior Citizens Act prioritizes the welfare of elderly individuals over property rights in eviction proceedings against family members.
The main legal principle established is that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are focused on the welfare and protection of senior citizens, and are not meant to decide the title of the p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of children to maintain their parents under the Senior Citizens Act, and the court's authority to intervene under Article 226 of the....
The main legal point established is the need for a harmonious construction of the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring that the rights of both parties are given due considerati....
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
Senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from separate residence of son in a building owned by him, under Senior Citizens Act – Son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned ....
The main legal point established is the court's reliance on the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to protect the well-being of senior citizens and uphold eviction orde....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.