1. Challenge to eviction order under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Del) 1271
2026 DHC 8543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., TEJAS KARIA, J.
Punam - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, GNCT Of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 11683 of 2022 & CM Appls. 34755 of 2022, 40490 of 2022, 36932 of 2023, 8321 of 2026, 8322 of 2026, 33770 of 2026
Decided On : 30-09-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Ms. Ritika Saini, Ms. Zainab Hussain, Mr. Varun Mudgil & Mr. Sarthak Malawaliya, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sameer Vashisht, S.C. (Civil), GNCTD with Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel, Civil, GNCTD, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Aman Sahani, Ms. Simran Khorana, Advs, Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain & Ms. Aditi Singh, Advs., Mr. Shiven Varma, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Mistry and Ms. Akansha Kaul, Adv.
Important Points
The power of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act is implicit to ensure the protection and maintenance of senior citizens. Such rules are not ultra vires the Act, and the right of a daughter-in-law to a shared household is not absolute when it conflicts with a senior citizen's right to a peaceful life.
Subject
Civil Law - Senior Citizens / Family Law
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.15, Art.21, Art.226, Art.41
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: S.3, S.4, S.5, S.7, S.8, S.21, S.22, S.23, S.27, S.32
Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009: R.22(3)(1), R.22(4)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: S.17, S.19, S.26
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: S.3, S.4, S.5, S.7, S.8, S.21, S.22, S.23, S.27, S.32
Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009: R.22(3)(1), R.22(4)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: S.17, S.19, S.26
Headnote
(A) Delegated Legislation - Validity of Rule 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 - Power of eviction is implicit in the mandate to protect the life and property of senior citizens under Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007; rules providing for eviction are not ultra vires the parent Act. (Para 29, 30)
(B) Right to Residence - Shared Household - Conflict between DV Act and Senior Citizens Act - The right of a daughter-in-law to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not indefeasible and must be balanced against the right of a senior citizen to live a peaceful and normal life. (Para 36, 38, 39)
(C) Interpretation of Rules - Scope of 'Son', 'Daughter' or 'Legal Heirs' - The expression must be interpreted liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of a welfare state; thus, a daughter-in-law falls within the scope of Rule 22(3)(1) for the purpose of eviction. (Para 40, 41, 42)
(D) Maintenance vs. Eviction - Independence of Proceedings - Application for eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules is independent of maintenance proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act; eviction can be ordered even if maintenance is not claimed. (Para 43, 44)
Issues: Whether Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules is ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act and whether a daughter-in-law can be evicted from a shared household under the said rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Right to Residence - Shared Household - Conflict between DV Act and Senior Citizens Act - The right of a daughter-in-law to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not indefeasible and must be balanced against the right of a senior citizen to live a peaceful and normal life. (Para 36, 38, 39)
(C) Interpretation of Rules - Scope of 'Son', 'Daughter' or 'Legal Heirs' - The expression must be interpreted liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of a welfare state; thus, a daughter-in-law falls within the scope of Rule 22(3)(1) for the purpose of eviction. (Para 40, 41, 42)
(D) Maintenance vs. Eviction - Independence of Proceedings - Application for eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules is independent of maintenance proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act; eviction can be ordered even if maintenance is not claimed. (Para 43, 44)
Issues: Whether Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules is ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act and whether a daughter-in-law can be evicted from a shared household under the said rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil, Sarthak Malawaliya
For the Respondents: Sameer Vashisht, Vaishali Gupta, Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain, Aditi Singh, Shiven Varma, Rishabh Mistry, Akansha Kaul
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil, Sarthak Malawaliya
For the Respondents: Sameer Vashisht, Vaishali Gupta, Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain, Aditi Singh, Shiven Varma, Rishabh Mistry, Akansha Kaul
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued eviction rule is ultra vires and violates rights under DV Act. Respondent argued eviction power is inherent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 18 )
3. Rule 22(3)(1) is referable to Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act for protecting life and property of senior citizens. (Para 29 , 30 )
4. Senior Citizens Act tribunals can order eviction when necessary to ensure maintenance and protection, per Supreme Court precedents. (Para 19 , 20 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; order of Divisional Commissioner directing eviction upheld. (Para 46 )
6. Are eviction rules under the Senior Citizens Act ultra vires the parent statute?
No. The power flows from Section 22(2) which mandates a comprehensive action plan for protection of senior citizens' life and property. (Para 29 , 30 )
7. Can a daughter-in-law be evicted under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules?
Yes. The terms 'son', 'daughter', and 'legal heirs' include families of children, such as a daughter-in-law, per liberal interpretation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
8. Is an eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act maintainable without a maintenance claim?
Yes. Eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) are independent of maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. (Para 44 )
9. Does the right to reside in a shared household under DV Act override eviction under Senior Citizens Act?
No. Both Acts must be harmonized; Tribunal may order eviction after considering competing claims, ensuring senior citizens live peacefully. (Para 25 , 26 , 38 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
CHALLENGE
1. Proceedings of this petition have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No. 320/2021/1249-1251, which was filed by the respondent no.2 against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, rejecting the application made by the respondent no.2 under Rule 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 [hereinafter referred to as the “2009 Rules”]. By the impugned order dated 07.07.2022, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 against the order of District Magistrate dated 10.02.2021 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the subject property to the respondent no.2 with a further direction that the petitioner shall not create any hassles in the peaceful life of respondent no.2. The Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority has also directed that the District Magistrate and the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police [“DCP”] shall ensure compliance of the said order and also that they shall ensure that life and property of the respondent no.2 is secured and no harassment is caused to the respondent no.2.
2. Apart from challenging the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, a prayer has also been made by the petitioner, seeking a declaration that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules are ultravires and violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
FACTS
3. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent no.2 and is married to one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Malawliya, who is the son of respondent no.2, as per Hindu rites and customs, on 22.04.1996. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born who are 24 and 21 years of age respectively.
4. There appears to be some matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband, as a result of which, a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 13.08.2018 against her husband, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Malawliya and the respondent no.2, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the “D.V. Act”] with certain prayers, including a prayer for passing a residence order under Section 19 of the D.V. Act restraining the respondent no.2 from dispossessing the petitioner from the shared household which she has been using in the property located at House No. 20, Ground Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. The proceedings of this application under the D.V. Act are stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), South, Saket Court, New Delhi.
5. On 23.10.2018, the respondent no.2 instituted proceedings seeking eviction of the petitioner from the shared household under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules. In terms of the scheme of Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate [“SDM”] concerned conducted an inquiry and reported that, “on inquiry nothing could be established about any harassment being caused by the petitioner and further that this is a matter of mutual family dispute and conflict between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, therefore, no specific conclusion could be drawn on whether any harassment is being caused by the petitioner or not”.
6. The said application, thereafter, was disposed of by the District Magistrate, who, vide his order dated 10.02.2021, rejected the application moved by the respondent no.2 under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules on consideration of certain material placed on record and also taking into account the report submitted by the SDM concerned.
7. The respondent no.2, feeling aggrieved, challenged the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the District Magistrate in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner filed by her under Rule 22(4) of 2009 Rules, which has been allowed by the Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority vide impugned ord
