The court affirmed that a senior citizen's right to peaceful possession of property under the Senior Citizens Act prevails over claims made under the Domestic Violence Act when no allegations of domestic violence against the senior citizen exist.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The present writ petition impugns order dated 2nd March, 2022 whereby the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of its powers under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2016 [“the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules”] upheld the eviction of the Petitioners No. 1 to 4. The impugned order stems from order dated 13th August, 2020, issued by the District Magistrate (North-East), permitting Respondent No. 1 to reclaim possession of her property bearing No. C-25/28, Gali No. 3, Rishi Kardam Marg, Chauhan Bangar, Seelampur, Delhi-110053 [“the subject property”] through eviction of the Petitioners.

THE PARTIES

2. The present petition is filed by Ms. Tabassum (Petitioner No. 1) who is married to Mr. Aslam Parvez (Petitioner No. 4). Together, they have two children, who are Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in these proceedings.

3. Ms. Amna Begum (Respondent No. 1), an elderly senior citizen, is the mother of Mr. Aslam Parvez, Mr. Mohammad Shahid (Respondent No. 4) and Ms. Shabana (Respondent No. 2). Mr. Shahid is married to Ms. Naima (Respondent No. 5) while Ms. Shabana remains unmarried.

4. The family resides in the subject property as follows: Ms. Tabassum, Mr. Aslam Parvez and their children occupy the second floor; Mr. Mohammad Shahid and Ms. Naima reside on the ground floor and Ms. Amna Begum lives on the first floor with Ms. Shabana. As a senior citizen, Ms. Amna Begum asserts her right to exclusive possession of the entire property, citing specific legal protections under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. [“the Senior Citizens Act”]

PETITIONERS’ CASE 

5. Counsel for Petitioners summarizes the case of the Petitioners as follows:

5.1. Petitioner No. 1 married Petitioner No. 4 in 2014. Soon after the marriage, Respondent No. 2 allegedly made demands for dowry, which Petitioner No. 1 was unable to fulfil. This became a constant source of discord in the family. Due to insufficient dowry, Respondent No. 2 instigated Respondent No. 1 to ask the Petitioner No. 4 to divorce the Petitioner No. 1 and expel her from the matrimonial house.

5.2. Being provoked by Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 published a newspaper advertisement on 11 th January, 2015 disowning both her sons, their wives and their children from her inheritance. This was followed by a complaint dated 19 th January, 2015 made by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioners with the Police Station, Seelampur.

5.3. Petitioner No. 1 states that she has been subject to constant physical and mental harassment by Respondents No. 1 and 2 since 2014. In particular, she cites the instance which took place on 26th April, 2016 where she was subject to physical assault at the hands of Respondents No. 1 and 2. As a result, she initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 20th September, 2019. [“the DV Act”] In respect of the said complaint, on 26 th October, 2021, the Mahila Court (Karkardooma Courts) passed a protection order in favour of Petitioner No. 1 under Section 18 of the DV Act.

5.4. The Petitioners contend that in retaliation to the DV Act proceedings, Respondent No. 1 disconnected the electricity of the floor where the Petitioners reside, despite regular payments made by them. In this regard, Petitioners filed a suit bearing C.S. No. 569/2021 [titled Tabassum v. Shabana] with the Karkardooma Courts seeking permanent injunction and Petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was dismissed through order dated 26th August, 2022. Ultimately, on 1st March, 2024, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

5.5. On 16 th April, 2019, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint accusing the Petitioners of physical and mental abuse and accordingly, sought their eviction from the subject property. This request was allowed by the District Magistrate through the impugned ord