In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court in relation to an order dated 10-01-2025, passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Divisional Commissioner, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), which upholds the view of the District Magistrate in order dated 15-04-2024, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found no perversity in the impugned order and reaffirmed the same.
The petitioners were senior citizens and owners of the property in question. Respondents 2 and 3 were their son and daughter-in-law. It was asserted by the petitioners that they were harassed, threatened, and physically assaulted to forcibly give the said property to the son and daughter-in-law. It was contended that the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner were perverse since there were sufficient instances to indicate the harassment of the petitioners.
The Court referred to S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. 2021 (15) SCC 730 and stated that in proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, orders for eviction must not be resorted to as a matter of routine and that the rights of the parties are to be balanced as and when required.
The order of the District Magistrate was perused, and it was stated that the said order recorded the respondents’ submission that they were willing to live peacefully with the petitioners and were ready to take care of them. Further, the Court perused the order of the Divisional Commissioner, which stated that the petitioner’s behavior was not that of a prudent man and that he was short-tempered.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court found no reason to re-appreciate the entire material to draw a fresh conclusion under its limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing the petition, the Court held that the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. Lastly, the Court held that the conclusion in the impugned orders was sufficiently reasoned and reaffirmed the same.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Pritish Sabharwal
For Respondents – Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv; Advocates Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Ms. Preeti Gothwal, Ms. Mehak Ghaloth, Mr. Akash Gahlot, Mr. Dhan Singh
