Eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be granted mechanically; courts must balance the rights of senior citizens with competing protections, such as those under the PWDV Act, and refrain from re-appreciating evidence under writ jurisdiction unless the lower authority's decision is patently perverse.

O R D E R

12.01.2026

1. The instant petition has arisen out of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act of 2007). The impugned order upholds and affirms the view taken by the District Magistrate in order dated 15.04.2024. It is, thus, seen that there are concurrent findings of fact by two authorities.

2. The petitioners claim to be senior citizens and the owners of property bearing No.D-14, Ground Floor, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as the property in question). Respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that they were harassed, threatened and physically assaulted to force them to give their properties to respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has made various submissions. He submits that the orders passed by both the authorities i.e. by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner are wholly perverse. According to him, there are sufficient instances, including the medico legal case of dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) in respect of petitioner no. 1 and the filing of false cases, to indicate harassment of the petitioners by respondents no. 2 and 3. He, therefore, contends that if the aforesaid document and material are appreciated in right perspective, it would indicate that a cause has arisen for protection against the said respondents and directions in favour of the petitioners to continue to reside in the property in question.

4. The aforesaid submissions are vehemently opposed by Mr. Sacchin Puri, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. According to him, the concerned authorities have considered all the material placed on record and have rightly dismissed the petitioners’ application. He has clarified that the Annexure P-4 relates to some eye surgery of petitioner no. 1 and has nothing to do with the alleged allegation of beating him. He unequivocally submits that there has been no instance of any cruelty being meted out to the petitioners. According to Mr. Puri, even a suit has been filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 claiming right over the property in question.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.¹2021 (15) SCC 730 has held that undoubtedly, the authorities have a power to evict the son and daughter-in law in favour of the senior citizens under the Act of 2007 , however, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of ownership. The provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 confer certain rights on women, including of residence in a shared household. The Court has held that the provisions of both the aforenoted beneficial legislations are to be harmonised so that the rights of the contesting parties are balanced on a case-to-case basis. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:

“22 This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7