KALAWATI Vs. UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioners who are husband and wife. Respondent No.1 in this case is their daughter-in-law. It is stated by the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 i.e. Smt.Kalawati was the owner of property No.6272, Gali No.2, Block No.6, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, having purchased the same in the year 1994 from previous owner. Respondent No.1 being the daughter-in-law was permitted by the petitioners to live with them in the house on the second floor of the premises measuring 50 ft x 45 ft (2 bed rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom). However, soon after her marriage, she started creating disturbances in the family on one pretext or the other, and started harassing petitioners. For this reason, the petitioner No.1 terminated the license of respondent No.1 and her husband, and filed a civil suit for eviction against her which was pending before the Civil Judge. In the year 2006 petitioner No.1 got ground floor of this property vacated from the tenant under provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act for her bonafide use and petitioner No.2 started living in the room vacated by the tenant. Respondent No.1 who was given notice of vacating the premises, did not vacate the same rather she threw out her husband also from the house. It is stated that petitioner No.1 was about 68 years aged and a cancer patient, and she was advised not to climb stairs due to pain. Petitioner No.2 was aged 70 years. The physical condition of petitioner No.1 was so pathetic that she required a healthy person to look after her. Both the petitioners intended to shift and live on the ground floor of the house vacated by the tenant but respondent No.1 objected to petitioners' shifting to the suit premises and resisted their entry in the house. She also quarreled with petitioners and made false complaints against them. On 27.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 respondent No.1 and her husband quarreled with the petitioners and wanted them to transfer the suit premises in their favour. Police was informed and a Kalandra was instituted under section 107/150 Cr.P.C.

(2.) A prayer is made by the petitioners that respondent No.1 be directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners on the ground floor and respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(3.) After hearing the parties, I consider that the petitioners are aggrieved that their daughter-in-law was in possession of the entire ground floor, while she was allowed to live on the second floor only and she was not allowing the petitioners to enter and live in their own property.