The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of the law allowing elderly parents or senior citizens to apply to a District Magistrate (DM) to evict their children or legal heirs from the property belonging to the parents [Punam v Divisional Commissioner, GNCT Of Delhi & Ors].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, provides relief to a senior citizen/parent to mitigate his/her sufferings on account of non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
It held that the provision derives its existence from Sections 22 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) and cannot be declared ultra vires.
While Section 22 empowers the State government to prescribe measures for protecting the life and property of senior citizens, Section 32 grants it the rule-making power.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the challenge laid by the petitioner on the provisions of Rule 22 (3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules fails, which is hereby rejected,” the Bench concluded.
Rule 22 (3)(1)(i) of the 2009 Rules provides relief to a senior citizen/parents to mitigate his/her sufferings on account of non-maintenance and ill-treatment.Delhi High Court
The High Court rendered the findings while dismissing a plea filed by one Punam. She had challenged an eviction order passed by the Divisional Commissioner of Delhi in favour of her mother-in-law.
Punam had argued that the Senior Citizens Act does not expressly provide for eviction proceedings and that the rules exceeded the State government's rule-making powers. She also contended that the provisions violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and infringed a woman's right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
She stated that she had married the senior citizen's son in 1996, and the couple had two children. Amid matrimonial discord, she filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act seeking protection of her residence in her mother-in-law's property.
Her mother-in-law subsequently sought her eviction under the 2009 Rules. Although the District Magistrate rejected the application in February 2021, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the mother's appeal in July 2022 and directed Punam to vacate the premises.
The High Court upheld the eviction order, noting that Punam was employed as a postgraduate teacher, earned a substantial income and had a separate house.
It added that her claim to reside in the shared household was not absolute and had to be considered alongside her mother-in-law's right to live peacefully.
Advocates Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil and Sarthak Malawaliya appeared for Punam.
Standing Counsel (Civil) Sameer Vashisht along with advocate Vaishali Gupta represented Delhi government.
Advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain, Aditi Singh, Shiven Varma and Rishabh Mistry appeared for other respondents.
[Read Judg ment]