HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ashok Biswas S/o Anil Biswas & Anr………….Appellants
Vs.
The Divisional Commissioner Department of Revenue Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors………….Respondents
Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice & Subramonium Prasad, J.
Decided on : 10/04/2023
Delhi has framed Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2009
Rule 22(3)(1)—Protection of life and property of senior citizens—Injunction which only protects the appellants from being ejected without following due process of law cannot survive in view of Rule 22 of the Delhi Rules read with Senior Citizens Act.
[Para 11]
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Section 1—Object and purpose—The Senior Citizens Act was enacted to deal with the problems faced by the senior citizens, particularly widowed women, who were not being looked after properly by their families and were forced to spend their twilight years all alone and were exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support—Object of the Act is actually to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of children or their aged parents/relatives to maintain such aged parents/relatives—Purpose of the Act is to provide a suitable mechanism for the protection of life and property of the older persons.
[Para 8]
Section 23—Order directing appellants to vacate the property—Letters Patent Appeal—A process has been prescribed under the Senior Citizens Act and the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2009 for senior citizens to seek eviction of their children from their property in case they are being ill-treated by their children—It, therefore, cannot be said that the appellants herein are being evicted without following the due process of law—Single Judge, after looking into the conduct of parties and after assessing the situation has taken a view that the second and third respondents, who are old parents, are being ill-treated by appellants and, therefore, they have full right to evict the appellants from the property in question, which is in their name—It is for the respondents to file an appropriate suit to establish that they have invested substantial amount of money in the construction of the property in question and get their rights declared—Appellants cannot take shelter of the previous order, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, and claim protection—No record to indicate that proceedings under the DV Act have been initiated by second appellant against her husband and her in-laws and she is also claiming her right of residence only through her husband—Injunction which only protects the appellants from being ejected without following due process of law cannot survive in view of Rule 22 of the Delhi Rules read with Senior Citizens Act—Judgment of Single Judge warrants no interference—Appeal dismissed.
VANYA BAJAJ ADVOCATE
