In summary proceedings to protect senior citizen welfare, authorities may order eviction from self-acquired property to ensure familial tranquility, notwithstanding claims of shared household status, particularly when the relationship is irretrievably broken and the occupants are financially capable of securing accommodation elsewhere.

JUDGEMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

The Petitioners are mother and son, respectively. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of Petitioner No.1.

2. The present petition has been instituted, challenging an order dated 28.08.2023 (hereinafter “Impugned Common Order”) passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 504/2022 and 505/2022 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “Senior Citizens Act”). By way of the Impugned Common Order, the Divisional Commissioner has allowed Appeal No. 504/2022 preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed Appeal No. 505/2022 preferred by the Petitioners, thereby, directing the Petitioners to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the entire property, including the ground floor shop, property bearing no. B-3/81, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, (hereinafter “Subject Property”) in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Late Mr. Pankaj Taneja on 11.09.2000. After their marriage, Petitioner No. 1 shifted to the first floor of the Subject Property. Subsequently, Late Mr. Taneja started running a grocery store on the first portion of the ground floor i.e. (veranda at ground floor) of the Subject Property.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the business and assets of the family were being managed collectively and that certain assurances were extended by Respondent No. 2 with regard to the distribution of properties amongst his sons. It is further averred that a registered Will dated 29.01.2021 was executed by Respondent No. 2, purportedly conferring rights in favour of the children of Petitioner No. 1.

5. Following the demise of Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja on 18.02.2020, disputes arose between the Petitioners and Respondents (in-laws). Thereafter, Respondents (in-laws) filed a complaint dated 09.11.2020 before the District Magistrate, Senior Citizens Act read with Rule 22(3)(1) of the DELHI MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS RULES , 2009 (hereinafter “Rules 2009”) framed thereunder, seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the Subject Property on account of ill treatment and non-maintenance.

6. Pursuant to the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and a report dated 08.12.2021 was submitted. Vide the said inquiry report, it was noted that the ownership of the Subject Property stood in the name of Respondent No. 2. Upon consideration of the material on record and the SDM’s inquiry report, the Maintenance Tribunal held that while no conclusive finding of harassment or maintenance neglect was established, the interference by the Petitioners in the ground floor portion adversely affected the senior citizens’ peaceful enjoyment of their property. Accordingly, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 12.04.2022, whereby, the complaint of the senior citizens’ was partly allowed and the Petitioners were directed to vacate the ground floor portion of the Subject Property.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred appeals before the Divisional Commissioner. The Respondents (in-laws), in Appeal No. 504/2022, contended that the relief granted by the Maintenance Tribunal (District Magistrate)was insufficient, and sought eviction of the Petitioners from the entire Subject Pro