Sandeep Gulati & anothers vs. Divisional Commissioner, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Others, Delhi High Court 2020
FACTS OF THE CASE
This Petition was filed by the son and the grandson of the respondant against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Rules, 2009 ordering eviction of the petitioners from house.
The petitioners further submit that there is no proof of any ill-treatment of the respondent by the petitioners. Also that the respondent have taken out various proceedings including filing of civil suit as also filing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner, however, the same remained unsubstantiated and, in fact, Closure Reports have been filed in the complaints filed by the respondent.
Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, states that the State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. Which simply means that the state government of the respective states will make the rules for the welfare of parents and senior citizens. These rules can differ from state to state.
REFERENCES MADE BY DELHI HC
Smt. Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., has held that it is apparent from the plain language of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 that a senior citizen is also entitled to evict his son, daughter or legal heir from his property irrespective of whether it is an ancestral or self-acquired property. It is also relevant to note that Delhi High Court said that Darshna has no right, title and interest in the premises and, therefore, cannot insist on residing with Dhani Ram and his wife especially when the relationships between the said parties have deteriorated to the extent as indicated above.”
This Judgment was further upheld division bench of Delhi High Court.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred Punjab & Haryana High Court, Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., has also held as under:
The Punjab Government as per Rule 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have framed rules which gives a duty on the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with a sense of security and dignity.
In Gurpreet Singh Case, the petitioner is a licensee living in the premises on the basis of concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, Respondent (father) was the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in part of the property. Such property owned by respondent mandated to be protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Protection of the property of a senior citizen includes all incidences, rights and obligations in respect of property in question. The P&H High Court held that the petitioner hab=ve no right to resist eviction and court said that the eviction is one part of the right to protect the property of a senior citizen which right could be exercised by a senior citizen in terms of provisions of the statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified.
JUDGMENT BY DELHI HC
The Hon’ble Justice Navin Chawla while answering to the arguments made by the Petitioner related to Criminal Proceedings like criminal complaint etc said that “No parent is expected to initiate such proceedings against their own children only out of vengeance or from some mala fide intents”
Also, Hon’ble Justice Chawla while referring to the above two cases, that is, Smt. Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. And Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., said that the above judgments clearly show that a senior citizen has to only show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir. Also, if the nature of possession of the petitioner(s) being that of a licencee (as in gurpreet singh case) and there admittedly being a series of litigations between them.
Therefore, the order of eviction cannot be faulted and Petitioners are liable to be evicted from the property of the respondent.
Follow us on: