VRINDA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Gurugram (for short - the Competent Authority) through which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the second floor of House No.532, Sector 31-32-A, Gurugram (in short the demised premises).

(3.) The facts in brief which are required to be noticed for adjudication of the present petition are that in the year 2009 the petitioner got married to Puneet Sharma who is the son of respondent nos.3 and 4. The demised premises which was owned by respondent nos.3 and 4 comprised of the ground and two floors. Respondent nos.3 and 4 resided on the ground floor; the first floor had been let out to tenants and the petitioner, her husband and her son, as licensees, were permitted by respondent nos.3 and 4 to occupy the second floor. There was marital discord between the petitioner and her husband which led to mental harassment of respondent nos.3 and 4 as a consequence whereof, in the year 2011, respondent nos.3 and 4 disowned both the petitioner and her husband. However, the marital disharmony between the petitioner and her husband continued and this led to further deterioration of relations between the petitioner on one hand and respondent nos.3 and 4 on the other. Allegedly, on receiving threats from the petitioner, respondent nos.3 and 4 filed a complaint against the petitioner on 4.9.2019 in Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent nos.3 and 4 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short - the 2005 Act) as also a complaint against respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Women Cell Gurugram on 14.11.2019. In these circumstances respondent nos.3 and 4 being senior citizens, filed an application before the Competent Authority under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short - the 2007 Act) against the petitioner and her husband seeking therein their eviction from the second floor of the demised premises. On being put to notice both the petitioner and her husband appeared before the Competent Authority and contested the application. However, neither the petitioner nor her husband contested the fact that the demised premises was not the self acquired property of respondent nos.3 and 4. The Competent Authority, after considering the issues with regard to the ownership of the demised premises; maintainability of respondent nos.3 and 4's application against their daughter-in-law; the premises in question being a shared household of the petitioner; the petitioner's right of residence in the premises in question in terms of Section 17(1) of 2005 Act and filing of complaints by the petitioner against respondent nos.3 and 4, ordered her eviction through the order under challenge in the present proceedings. No eviction order was passed against the petitioner's husband as he was found to be residing in a rented accommodation elsewhere and not on the second floor of the demised premises.