$~95

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 338/2026 and CM APPL. 1650-1651/2026

KAMAL KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Nayyar, Mr. Sunil Kumar

and Ms. Rekha Rani, Advocates.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. The petitioners are sons and daughter-in-law of respondent no.3. Respondent no. 3 had filed a complaint under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for eviction of the petitioners from the property bearing No. RZ-L-13

Part-11, Hastal, Chanakya Place, D.K. Mohan Garden, Delhi.

2. On due consideration, the District Magistrate found that owing to the misbehaviour of petitioner no.1, respondent no. 3 sought to debar the petitioners from all his immovable properties. Petitioner no.1 was stated to be a habitual drinker and after getting intoxicated, he would allegedly abuse

and fight with respondent no. 3. The said authority called for a report by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and upon its due consideration, found that circumstances entitling respondent no. 3 for an order for an order for eviction existed and accordingly, the impugned order was passed.

3. The observations which have been made by the original authority in the order dated 04.10.2024, are extracted below, for reference:-

“OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS:-

On the perusal of the facts and circumstances of the present case and after hearing the contentions of both the parties and the report filed by SDM after due inspection of the suit property, it is observed that it is an undisputed fact that the suit property is owned by complainant. The complainant has clear and unequivocal allegations against the respondents. Once it is established prima facie that the suit property is owned by the complainant then it is not even essential to establish the factum of cruelty against the complainant. The senior citizen parents are entitled for getting an eviction order in their favor. Reliance to be placed upon the following judgments:

i. Further, in regard to respondents, it is a settled law that the wife cannot have a better title than the husband with respect to the property of in laws. That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in LPA NO. 537/2018 titled as Smt. Darshna Vs The Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. on dated

18/09/2018 has held that:

‘In the present case, excluding daughter-in-law from the scope of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 as amended would debilitate the provisions of the Rules and render it incapable to serve the object of Section 22 of the Act. It is difficult to accept that although a senior citizen is entitled to evict his/her son who is maltreating him, he/she has no option but to suffer the ill-treatment at the hands of his/her daughter-in-law. A daughter-in-laws right to reside in the premises of her in-laws cannot be greater than her husbands’. The expression “son and daughter or legal heirs” as used in the aforesaid Rules must also take within its sweep the families of the daughter/son, of a senior citizen. The term “legal heirs” must be understood in the broadest sense. Indisputably, a daughter-in-law is also a heir in certain circumstances (widow or a pre-deceased son).”’

ii. In Sachin and Anr Vs JhabbuLal and Anr. the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 24/11/2016 has observed that: “Here the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his bu