##PAGE1##

$~13

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19838/2025, CM APPL.82795/2025 and 82796/2025

RASHMI @POOJA BAHRY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Osama Suhail, Ms. Sumana

Suhail, Ms. Sanya Gandotra and Ms.

Puja Kesarwani, Advocates.

versus

NEENA BAHRY & ORS. .....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

O R D E R

% 31.12.2025

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order

dated 05.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate (West), GNCTD in

Eviction Case No. 692/DCW/2022 and the consequential orders passed by the

Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Department of revenue,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in the proceedings under Rule 22(3)(4) of Delhi

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

2. It is submitted that on account of the impugned orders, the petitioner is

facing imminent threat of dispossession from her residential abode. It is

further submitted that the impugned orders do not examine the controversy in

keeping with the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha vs The

Deputy Commissioner (2021) 15 SCC 730, wherein it has been held that the

rights conferred under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 must be construed harmoniously with the rights enjoyed

by a daughter-in-law in the shared household. The relevant observations in S.

Vanitha (supra) are as under:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 17:24:19

“34. Section 36 [ “36. Act not in derogation of any other law.—The

provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of

the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.”] of the

PWDV Act, 2005 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in

addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for

the time being in force. This is intended to ensure that the remedies

provided under the enactment are in addition to other remedies and do

not displace them. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 is undoubtedly a later Act and as we have noticed

earlier, Section 3 stipulates that its provisions will have effect,

notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other

enactment. However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens

Act, 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves

be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a

shared household, as under the PWDV Act, 2005. Principles of

statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two special Acts

containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall typically prevail.

[Solidaire (India) Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2001) 3

SCC 71] In the present case, as we have seen, the Senior Citizen's Act,

2007 contains a non obstante clause. However, in the event of a conflict

between special Acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have

to be analysed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The

primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonise, not excise. A

two-Judge Bench of this Court, in Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh [Bank

of India v. Ketan Parekh, (2008) 8 SCC 148] , in examining a similar

factual scenario, observed that : (SCC p. 160, para 28)

“28. In the present case, both the two Acts i.e. the Act of 1992 and

the Act of 1993 start with the non obstante clause. Section 34 of the

Act of 1993 starts with non obstante clause, likewise Section 9-A

(sic 13) of the Act of 1992. But incidentally, in this case Section 9-A

came subsequently i.e. it came on 25-1-1994. Therefore, it is a

subsequent legislation which will have the overriding effect over the

Act of 1993. But cases might arise where both the enactments have

the non obstante clause then in that case, the proper perspective

would be that one has to see the subject and the dominant p