Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016
Rule 22(3)(4)—Order of eviction—Legality of—First and second petitioners are daughter-in-law and son of the third respondent, a senior citizen—Question as to whether the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act can pass an eviction order in light of an existing protection order, and residence claims over shared household under the Domestic Violence Act—Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under the Senior Citizens Act is not stripped off by virtue of a protection order under the DV Act—While the petitioner’s right under the Domestic Violence Act is acknowledged, it does not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there is evidence of gross ill-treatment—There is no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction.
[Paras 7 to 9]
Rule 22(3)(4)—Eviction application—Maintainability of—First and second petitioners are daughter-in-law and son of the third respondent, a senior citizen—While the petitioners have claimed that the subject property is owned by a company, which is a distinct legal entity and that third respondent has a shareholding of merely 33.09% in the company, it is imperative to note that the quantification of the senior citizen’s share in the subject property is inconsequential, and third respondent’s share in the property by virtue of her shareholding, is sufficient for her to seek eviction under the Senior Citizens Act.
[Para 10]
Rule 22(3)(4)—Order of eviction—Legality of—Mere existence of family disputes or interpersonal conflicts does not negate the senior citizen’s right to seek peace and protection under the law—Suggestions of coexistence and financial hardship do not override the statutory protections granted to senior citizen, nor do they negate the findings of ill-treatment that have been recorded—Order of eviction rightly passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, and no ground is made out to interfere with the exercise of their discretion under the Senior Citizens Act.
[Para 16]
Rule 22(3)(4)—Order of eviction—Challenged—Case involves contesting claims of senior citizen to seek an order of eviction under Senior Citizens Act and of the daughter-in-law to seek residence in shared household under provisions of the Domestic Violence Act—First and second petitioners are daughter-in-law and son of the third respondent, a senior citizen—Petitioners have engaged in conduct that amounts to ill-treatment as contemplated under the Senior Citizens Act—Eviction order was necessary and appropriate response to the ongoing ill-treatment of the senior citizen—Petitioner’s arguments for continued residence in the property are, therefore, outweighed by respondents’ right to live free from abuse, distress and undue interference—Daughter-in-law’s right are specifically pitted against in-laws and not her husband—In order to harmonize the senior citizen’s rightful claim with daughter-in-law’s residential rights under the Domestic Violence Act, the directions issued.
[Paras 24 & 25]