Rajesh Basoya vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 16 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010279632022
+ W.P.(C) 11103/2022 & CM APPL. 32567/2022, CM APPL.
60188/2026
RAJESH BASOYA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Saubhagya
Chauriha, Mr. Karandeep
Singh, Advocates along with
petitioner in person.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Usha Pandey, Advocate for
R2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
14.07.2022 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned
Divisional Commissioner whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2019 pursuant to which the
petitioner and his brothers were directed to vacate the properties
bearing H.No. C-167 and C-167/A/1, Dasghara Mohalla, Gali No. 1,
Ramesh Market, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi came to be
dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the eldest son of Respondent
Nos. 2 (father) and 3 (mother) and is stated to be in possession of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

property being H.No. C-167/A/1, Dasghara Mohalla, Gali No.1,
Ramesh Market, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi (hereafter
‘ subject property ’). Initially, a suit was preferred by Respondent No.
2 in the year 2012 against the petitioner seeking the relief of
mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the fourth floor and
one shop on the ground floor of the subject property. The said suit
came to dismissed on 25.11.2019 noting that Respondent No.2 had
failed to prove that he is the sole owner or licensor of the subject
property and the petitioner is the co-sharer therein. Prior to the same,
on 11.09.2018, an application was filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 11.09.2018 seeking eviction of the
petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from the aforementioned
properties – being H.No. C-167 and C-167/A/1 on account of ill
treatment and harassment. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the younger
brothers of the petitioner.
3. By order dated 25.11.2019, the learned District Magistrate
allowed the application preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and
directed the petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to vacate
the said properties. An appeal was thereafter preferred by the
petitioner before the learned Divisional Commissioner and the same
also came to be dismissed by the impugned order noting that
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had been harassed and ill-treated and were
forced to approach the authorities so as to live peacefully in their own
house.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

petition.
5. It has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have been initiated by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the instigation of his unmarried sisters
who are residing with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the
petitioner is a co-sharer in the subject property and is possession of the
same. He submits that initially a civil suit was preferred by
Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and the same came to be
dismissed noting that the petitioner is a co-sharer in the subject
property. He submits that no appeal was preferred by Respondent No.
2 against the dismissal of the suit. He submits that the subject property
had fallen to the petitioner by virtue of an oral settlement effected in
the month of January, 2003.
6. He further draws the attention of this Court to the site plan and
submits that though the properties are situated in the same vicinity, the
subject property in which the petitioner is residing stands at a distance
of 100.10 metres from the property in which Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
are residing. He submits that in such circumstances, the claim of
harassment and ill treatment is meritless.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 submits that the subject property was always owned by
Respondent No. 2, however, owing to the constant scuffle between the
brothers, the subject property was temporarily given to the petitioner.
She submits that Respondent No. 2 is the rightful owner of the subject
property and the said property was constructed so that Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

2 could gain some rental income. She submits that Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 were constantly ill-treated and harassed at the hands of the
petitioner as a result of which multiple complaints were preferred. She
consequently submits that the present petition is without any merit and
is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties and
carefully traversed the record, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order insofar as the same relates to the petitioner, cannot be
sustained for the following reasons.
9. Firstly, though much emphasis has been laid by the learned
counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the fact that Respondent No.
2 is the rightful owner of the subject property and the same was only
temporarily given to the petitioner on account of the scuffle between
the brothers, the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed in the civil suit
instituted by Respondent No. 2 records that Respondent No. 2 is not
the sole owner and licensor of the subject property. It was noted that
while various disputes had arisen between the parties since 2012,
Respondent No. 2 had failed to prove that he is the sole owner of the
subject property. It was further noted that the petitioner had been
residing in the subject property since the year 2003 and he was also
the co-sharer therein. Consequently, the relief of mandatory and
permanent injunction was declined to Respondent No. 2.
10. Secondly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner had
drawn the attention of this Court to Layout Plan of the aforementioned
properties which clearly reflects that the subject property being C-
167/A/1 stands at a distance of 100.10 metres from the properties
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

being C-167 and C1-167 where Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 reside.
While the allegations of ill treatment and harassment made at the
instance of the parents cannot and ought not to be trivialised, the site
plan clearly reflects that the properties though in the same vicinity, are
not even situated adjacent to each other. As noted by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District and Others : (2021) 15 SCC 730 , while
the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, may order an eviction, such a recourse ought to be
resorted to only if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Further, the
said remedy can only be granted to after adverting to the competing
claims in the dispute.
11. As noted above, the Layout plan on record clearly demonstrates
that although the properties bearing Nos. C-167/C1-167 and C-
167/A/1 are situated in the same vicinity, they are not contiguous to
each other, the latter being situated approximately 100 metres away
from the premises where the parents reside. Further, the judgment
dated 25.11.2019 passed in the civil suit though not a conclusive
determination of title, expressly records that the petitioner has been
residing in the subject property as a co-sharer and Respondent No. 2 is
not the sole owner or licensor of the subject property.
12. On such a conspectus of facts, the impugned order cannot be
sustained qua the petitioner and is consequently set aside.
13. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
petition are only confined to the subject property and the petitioner,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

and does not extend to the portion of the property where Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 reside.
14. The present petition along with the pending applications stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11103/2022 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31