Not Mandatory For Senior Citizen To Establish Ill-Treatment By Legal Heirs Or Children For Eviction Or Any Other Relief: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that it is not mandatory for a senior citizen to establish ill-treatment or non-maintenance by his or her legal heirs/children for seeking eviction or any other relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Appellate Authority of Divisional Commissioner by which an Eviction Order was set aside.

A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “… the legal premise of the impugned order viz. that it is mandatory and necessary pre-requisite for a senior citizen to establish ill-treatment or non-maintenance by his or her legal heirs / children for being entitled to the relief of eviction and / or other beneficent provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, is legally misconceived and contrary to settled law.”

The Bench reiterated that the beneficent dispensation created under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules does not require, as a pre-condition or invocation / application thereof, that the senior citizen has suffered ill-treatment and / or non-maintenance at the hands of his or her children.

Advocate Naveen Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate (Panel Counsel) Vaishali Gupta represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was a senior citizen residing on the first floor of the subject property along with his wife. Respondents No. 2 was the Petitioner’s daughter and wife of Respondent No.3, Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 were children born out of the wedlock of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 were spouses of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 (respectively). Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were residing on the second floor of the subject property. The said property was allotted to the Petitioner by virtue of a possession slip issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). As per the Petitioner’s case, he allocated the subject property with an intention to reside on the first floor and to rent out the second and third floor for a steady post-retirement income. However, in the year 2014, out of love and affection, he allowed the Respondents to temporarily reside on the second floor of the subject property as permissible licensee.

Subsequently, upon mutual consent, the Petitioner and Respondents executed a rent agreement for the second floor. However, thereafter, the relationship between them went sour on account of alleged ill treatment meted out on him and his wife by the Respondents. Consequently, the Petitioner filed a complaint against them under the Senior Citizens Act and Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules 2009 before the concerned District Magistrate (DM) seeking their eviction from the second floor. The DM directed the Respondents to vacate the property and peacefully handover the same to the Petitioner. This was challenged by the Respondents before the Court of Divisional Commissioner and the DM’s Order was set aside. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In the factual conspectus of the present case, it is undisputed that the induction of the respondent nos. 2 and her family into the subject property, is solely traceable to, and only on account of the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the said property. As such, it is wholly untenable for the respondent/s to claim any independent title/interest in the property in question.”

The Court reiterated that a senior citizen can seek to evict his/her legal heirs/children from his/her property in which he/she has a “right or interest”.

“In the facts of the present case, as noticed, it was the petitioner who inducted the respondent no.2 and her family into the subject property; the same was pursuant to the right/title/ownership acquired by the petitioner therein. It may have been that the petitioner was staying on the first floor of the property in question and second/third floors were built subsequently thereupon. In the facts of the present case, it is unambiguously clear that the possession of the respondent nos.2 to 7 is referable to, and based only on the license initially granted by the petitioner”, it noted.

The Court was of the view that the jurisdiction under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 is to be exercised for the purpose of ensuring the senior citizen’s safety, dignity, and possession of the premises.

Conclusion

The Court observed that the Petitioner is not precluded from invoking the statutory mechanism under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, with regard to all portions of the subject property.

“In Pritam Singh (supra), it has been noticed that in several judicial pronouncements, this Court has gone to the extent of holding that a senior citizen is entitled to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even where the title of the property is disputed and senior citizen only has a “modicum of right” in the subject property. In the present case, the right/title/interest/ownership of the petitioner stands on a far better footing”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and directed the Respondents to vacate the second floor of the property.

Cause Title- Piare Khan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10296)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Naveen Kumar, Poonam, Ujjal Das, Amit Kumar, and Manvender Rawat.

Respondents: Advocates (Panel Counsel) Vaishali Gupta, Manish Kumar, Ashwini Kumar, Rohit Sharma, and Mukesh Tiwari.

Click here to read/download the Judgment