The Delhi High Court has strongly asserted that the beneficent dispensation created under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules does not require, as a precondition or invocation/application thereof, that the senior citizen has suffered ill-treatment and/or non-maintenance at the hands of his or her children.
Essentially, the High Court declared that a senior citizen doesn’t need to establish ill-treatment or non-maintenance by his or her legal heirs/children to be entitled to the relief of eviction and/or other beneficent provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.
Therefore, upheld the order of the District Magistrate and directed the respondents (daughter of the petitioner and her family) to vacate the subject property and peacefully hand over the possession thereof, within a period of four weeks, to the petitioner.
Finding that the possession of the respondent on the subject property is based only on the license initially granted by the petitioner, the Court observed 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.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed that in the context of a beneficial legislation such as the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even in a situation where a senior citizen does not rush/act with alacrity in filing complaint/s in terms of the prescribed statutory mechanism, the same is not a ground to deny to the senior citizen/s the rights flowing from the said enactment.
It may be that in a particular case, a senior citizen continues to face harassment at the hands of his or her children and approaches the concerned authority only after a gap of some time in the hope that the children/legal heir/s shall mend their conduct, and the situation shall resolve itself. It may also happen that attempts are made by the senior citizen to reconcile with his or her children instead of taking precipitative steps. However, that by itself is no ground to deny a senior citizen the rights conferred under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, clarified the Bench.
The Single Judge therefore discarded the setting aside the eviction on the premise that ill-treatment or non-maintenance by the legal heirs/children is a prerequisite for evicting legal heirs/children from the property of a senior citizen under the Senior Citizen Act.
Briefly, in December 1976, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a property to the petitioner, who built up to three storeys, planning to live on the first floor and rent out the second and third floors for a steady income post-retirement. However, in 2014, out of love and affection, he allowed his daughter and her family to reside on the second floor of the property temporarily as permissible licensees, by execution of a rent agreement.
Later, as his relationship with his daughter and her family soured due to their alleged mistreatment towards him and his wife, the petitioner filed a complaint against his daughter and her husband under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009, seeking their eviction.
While this complaint was sub-judice before the concerned District Magistrate, the petitioner made a public declaration, officially disowning his daughter. Subsequently, the District Magistrate directed the daughter and her family to vacate the subject property and peacefully hand over its possession to the petitioner.
Appearances:
Advocates Naveen Kumar, Poonam, Ujjal Das, Amit Kumar, and Manvender Rawat, for the Petitioner
Advocates Vaishali Gupta, Manish Kumar, Ashwini Kumar, Rohit Sharma, and Mukesh Tiwari, for the Respondent
