Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To Rules Empowering District Magistrate To Evict Children Or Legal Heirs From Senior Citizen’s Property

The Court held that the eviction provisions are supported by Sections 22 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. On the facts, it also upheld the Divisional Commissioner’s order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her mother-in-law’s property.

The Court was hearing the daughter-in-law’s writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner’s order reversing the District Magistrate’s refusal to grant eviction. She also sought a declaration that the relevant provisions of Rule 22(3)(1) were ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act and violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed: “Sub-section 2 of Section 22 mandates the State Government to prescribe a comprehensive plan not only for providing protection of life but also protection of property of the senior citizens and for the purpose of achieving such an object, if Rule 22(3)(1) provides that an eviction order can be passed by the District Magistrate on an application made to him by a senior citizen in certain circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned rule cannot be said to be ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act. Sub-section 2 of Section 22 itself permits the State Government to prescribe a comprehensive plan which may be issued by a simple executive order or circular or in the form of rules such as the impugned Rules.”

Meera Kaura Patel, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil), represented the Government of NCT of Delhi, while Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate, appeared for the senior citizen.

Background

The petitioner was the daughter-in-law of the senior citizen who owned the disputed property. Following matrimonial discord, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and sought a residence order restraining her dispossession from the property, which she claimed as a shared household.

The senior citizen subsequently sought the petitioner’s eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. After an inquiry, the District Magistrate rejected the application. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the senior citizen’s appeal and directed the petitioner to vacate the property, while also directing the authorities to protect the senior citizen’s life and property and prevent harassment.

The petitioner contended that the Senior Citizens Act did not contemplate eviction and that the rule-making power under Section 32 could not introduce a remedy absent from the parent statute. She also relied upon her right to reside in a shared household under Sections 17 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The senior citizen argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2026) recognised the authority to order eviction when necessary for a senior citizen’s maintenance and protection. The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor supported her position. The Union of India, however, contended that the State Government lacked authority under the Senior Citizens Act to frame a rule providing for eviction, relying upon the stand it had taken before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Others (2020).

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the Senior Citizens Act creates distinct statutory mechanisms for maintenance under Chapter II and for protection of the life and property of senior citizens under Chapter V. Section 22 empowers the State Government to confer necessary powers and duties upon District Magistrates and requires it to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for protecting senior citizens.

The Bench held that Rule 22(3)(1) permits a senior citizen to approach the District Magistrate for eviction of a son, daughter or legal heir occupying the senior citizen’s property while failing to maintain or ill-treating them. The rule also requires verification of the title and facts, followed by a notice and an opportunity to show cause before eviction.

The Court stated: “Accordingly, in our opinion, impugned Rule 22 (3)(1)(i) and (iv) of 2009 Rules are not only referable to the rule making power of the State Government available to it under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act but is also referable to Section 22 of the said Act.”

The Court relied upon Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2026), where the Supreme Court held that the tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act possesses the incidental power to order eviction when necessary to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.

The Bench also considered S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others (2021), Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2025), Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar (2025), and Kamalakant Mishra v. Collector (2025). It observed that these decisions consistently recognised eviction as an incident of enforcing a senior citizen’s right to maintenance and protection, even though the Senior Citizens Act does not expressly prescribe eviction proceedings.

The Court held that Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Others (2020) and Sudershan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2021), upon which the petitioner relied, could no longer support the challenge after the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions.

The Bench observed: “Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely Simrat Randhawa (supra) and Sudershan Kumar (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner as these judgements cannot be said to be good law any more in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kant Gupta (supra).”

The Court accepted the general principle stated in Hukam Chand v. Union of India (1972), Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi Administration v. Siri Ram (2000), and Dr. Mahachand Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Others (2004), that delegated legislation cannot travel beyond its parent statute. However, it held that the impugned provisions did not exceed the statute because their source could be traced to both Sections 22(2) and 32 of the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court observed that the rights created by the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act must be harmoniously construed. Relying upon S. Vanitha (2021), it noted that an eviction remedy under the Senior Citizens Act cannot automatically nullify a woman’s competing claim to reside in a shared household.

The Bench nevertheless found that the petitioner’s claim to remain in the property was not indefeasible. The Divisional Commissioner had found that she was employed as a Post Graduate Teacher, earned a substantial income and had a separate residence.

The Court observed: “She is also having a separate house and therefore, her claim to reside in the shared household not being indefeasible has to be considered vis-à-vis right of the respondent no.2, who is a senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life.”

The Court held that the senior citizen was entitled to live normally and peacefully without being subjected to the consequences of the matrimonial discord between her son and daughter-in-law. It consequently found that the eviction order properly balanced the petitioner’s claim against the senior citizen’s statutory rights.

The Court also rejected the argument that Rule 22(3)(1) did not apply to a daughter-in-law because it referred to a son, daughter or legal heir. Relying upon Shadab Khairi v. State (2018) and Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2018), it held that the provision must be liberally interpreted to include the families of a senior citizen’s son or daughter and could not be construed so narrowly as to defeat its protective purpose.

The Court rejected the contention that eviction could be ordered only when the senior citizen had separately claimed maintenance. It distinguished proceedings for maintenance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act from eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules.

The Bench explained that maintenance proceedings are instituted before the Maintenance Tribunal, whereas eviction proceedings are brought before the District Magistrate, with an appeal lying to the Divisional Commissioner. The absence of a separate maintenance claim, therefore, did not affect the maintainability of an eviction application.

The Court held: “Thus, these proceedings being independent of each other, even if a prayer for maintenance under section 4 read with section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act by instituting appropriate proceedings has not been made, an application under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules can be maintained.”

Conclusion

The Court rejected the constitutional and statutory challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

It also upheld the Divisional Commissioner’s order directing the petitioner to vacate the senior citizen’s property and found no ground for interference. The writ petition was dismissed, the pending applications were disposed of and no order as to costs was made.

Cause Title: Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8543-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil and Sarthak Malawaliya, Advocates

Respondents: Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil), assisted by Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil); Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain and Aditi Singh, Advocates; Shiven Varma, Rishabh Mistry and Akansha Kaul, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment