POOJA MEHTA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition challenges the order dtd. 31/3/2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, ["impugned order"] who, as the Appellate Authority under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2016, ["Senior Citizens Rules"] upheld the eviction of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 - the daughter-in-law and son of Respondent No. 3, an elderly senior citizen. The impugned order originates from the earlier order dtd. 18/9/2020, issued by the District Magistrate, permitting Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reclaim possession of their property, i.e., Sai Naman Aster Estate, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. ["Subject Property"] This case, therefore, brings to the forefront the interplay between the rights of a daughter-in-law in a shared household under domestic violence laws and the protective measures granted to senior citizens for their welfare and property security under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. ["Senior Citizens Act"] The Court is now called upon, to balance these conflicting rights and determine the legality of the eviction order in light of established precedents and statutory provisions.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, who married Petitioner No. 2 in 2013, is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are children from Petitioner No. 1's prior marriage and have been impleaded in the present proceedings, asserting their independent rights to the Subject Property based on their residence therein. While they seek to bolster the case of Petitioner No. 1, it remains undisputed that they are both adults- Petitioner No. 3 has since married, and Petitioner No. 4 is currently pursuing higher education through a master's program.

(3.) Respondent No. 3, a senior citizen, is the mother of Petitioner No. 2 and the widow of Respondent No. 2, Vijay Mehta. It was Mr. Vijay Mehta, who had initially commenced the eviction proceedings before his unfortunate demise. Nevertheless, the rights and claims of Respondent No. 3 persist and form the core of this dispute. As a senior citizen, she claims exclusive possession of the property, invoking specific legal protections, including those under the Senior Citizens Act. Petitioners' Contentions