ORDER

% 11.01.2023

1.The present petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 30.09.2016 and 30.01.2019 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal (Central District) Delhi under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was aggrieved due to restriction on the rights of the Petitioner to access the terrace for the purpose of maintaining the water tanks.

3.In reply, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that in order to avoid all controversy in this regard, the door to the terrace itself has been removed.

4.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the second grievance of the Petitioner in the petition is with respect to installation of the CCTV on the main entrance of the building, facing the road. He states that the due to the installation of said CCTV the privacy of the petitioner is hindered as there is monitoring on his movements. The said order was passed by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the Petitioner’s family was residing on the first floor of the building.

5.This Court is of the view that the installation of the CCTV on the main entrance of the building road facing the public road cannot intrude upon the privacy of the resident of the building, since in the city of Delhi it is a normal practice for the residents to install a CCTV on the entrance for the security of the residents of the building.

6.Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Petitioner’s family has since moved out from the first floor of the building and it has been let out by the Petitioner to paying guests, though the Petitioner resides there from time to time.

7.In this view of the matter, this Court feels that the circumstances which existed at the time of passing of the order dated 30.09.2016 have undergone a change and therefore, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out on account of installation of the said CCTV. The CCTV is admittedly facing the public road and not any private space of the residents in the building.

8.This Court also finds that there has been no violation of the order by the concerned station house officer (SHO).

9.Learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that they have not interfered with the access of the Petitioner to the terrace. Respondent no.

1 and 2 are bound to the statement. In case the Respondents find there is a necessity to install a door on the terrace, for any reason, they shall firstly provide two spare keys to the Petitioner herein.

10.Accordingly, the present petition and pending applications, if any, are disposed of. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JANUARY 11, 2023/ rhc/asb