Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31546
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
VINOD KUMAR BALI – Appellant
Versus
ASHISH BALI & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-6710/2023
The court affirmed that a senior citizen can seek eviction of their children from their property under the Senior Citizens Act if they demonstrate ownership and evidence of ill-treatment.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Rule 22(3)(1) - Eviction petition filed by senior citizen against son and daughter-in-law - District Magistrate allowed eviction; Divisional Commissioner set aside order - Court found that the petitioner, as lawful owner, was subjected to ill-treatment by respondents - The eviction under the Senior Citizens Act is justified when the senior citizen demonstrates ownership and ill-treatment. (Paras 1, 10, 18)
(B) Rights of Senior Citizens - The Act aims to protect senior citizens from harassment by their children or relatives, allowing for eviction in cases of ill-treatment. (Paras 8, 18)
(C) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The rights under the DV Act must be harmoniously construed with the Senior Citizens Act, ensuring protection for both vulnerable groups. (Paras 9, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his property due to ill-treatment and harassment. The District Magistrate granted eviction, but the Divisional Commissioner set it aside, leading to the present petition. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court restored the eviction order, emphasizing the petitioner's ownership and the ill-treatment he faced, which justified the eviction under the Senior Citizens Act. (Paras 18-20)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the eviction order, the substantiation of ill-treatment, and the balance of rights under the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act. (Paras 4, 10, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s ownership and evidence of ill-treatment warranted eviction, and the Divisional Commissioner erred in disregarding these factors. (Paras 18-20)
Result: The petition is allowed; the order of the District Magistrate is restored.
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J:
1. The Petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bali, a senior citizen, had filed an eviction petition under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009,1 seeking eviction of his son, Respondent No. 1, and daughter-in-law, Respondent No. 2 from property bearing No. B1/107, UGF, Janakpuri, Delhi.2 The District Magistrate, through order dated 10th November, 2022, allowed the Petitioner’s eviction petition, directing the Respondents to vacate the Subject Property. The Respondents filed an appeal against the said order, whereby the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 1st May, 2023,3 set aside the order of the District Magistrate.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the Petitioner
1 “Senior Citizens Rules”
2 “Subject Property” 3 “impugned order” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6710/2023 Page 1 of 18 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the impugned order. The Petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the impugned order, arguing that it disregards his right to reside peacefully in his own property, as envisaged under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ,4 and the Rules framed thereunder.
PETITIONER’S CASE
3. Mr. R.K. Tarun, counsel for the Petitioner presents the following facts leading to the initiation of the present proceedings:
3.1 The Petitioner, aged about 77 years, is the lawful owner of the Subject Property, and has been residing there along with his wife, aged 66 years. The property was the self-acquired asset of the Petitioner’s father, Late Shri Krishna Bali, who had executed a Will dated 15th December, 1997, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar-II, Delhi. Upon his demise on 29th December, 2002, as per the Will, the Subject Property bequeathed upon the Petitioner, his mother and his sister, Ms. Shashi Mohan. Subsequently, after the death of the Petitioner’s mother, the property bequeathed upon the Petitioner and his sister on account of being the only surviving legal heirs of their parents. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s sister relinquished her share in the Subject Property through Relinquishment Deed dated 15th February, 2006, thereby making the Petitioner the absolute owner of the property.
3.2 Respondent No. 1, the son of the Petitioner, got married to Respondent No. 2 on 18th February, 2022. Following the marriage, the Respondents requested the Petitioner to allow them to reside in the Subject Property. In a gesture of goodwill, the Petitioner granted them a ‘permissive license’ to occupy the property.
4 “Senior Citizens Act”
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6710/2023 Page 2 of 18
3.3 Shortly thereafter, the Respondents started subjecting the Petitioner and his wife to ill-treatment and harassment, frequently threatening and abusing them. The attitude of the Respondents rendered it impossible for the Petitioner to cohabit in the same property. Faced with this distressing situation, the Petitioner sought legal recourse by filing an eviction application under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizens Rules before the District Magistrate.
3.4 Apprehending imminent eviction from the Subject Property, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the Petitioner and his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .5 In the said proceedings, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, passed a protection order dated 25th July, 2022 in favour of Respondent No. 2, directing the Petitioner not to dispossess her from the Subject Property without following due process of law.
3.5 In the aforesaid background, the District Magistrate vide order dated 10th November, 2022, passed an order directing the eviction of the Respondents from the Subject Property.
3.6 Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the Respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of Divisional Commissioner, w
