Ram Nath Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 774/2024 and CM APPL. 451/2026
Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAM NATH YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surinder Anand and Ms.
Sugandha Anand, Advocates.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms Avni Singh(Panel Counsel
GNCTD) with Mr Vaibhav Sharma,
Advocates.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for R-2
and 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“ A) for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction or-
order challenging the validity, legality, and correctness, quashing and/ or
to be set aside of the impugned order under section 22(3)(1) of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, in the
case of, "Ramnath Yadav Vs. Krishna & Anr., Case no. 1/108/2021" dated
24.06.2022 and 13.08.2022 passed by Sh. Hemant Kumar, IAS, Ld.
District Magistrate / Senior Citizen Tribunal District Southwest assailing
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 1 of 6

the rights of the petitioner/ senior citizen aged about 72 years and further
affirmed by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Divisional Commissioner/ Appellate
Authority has passed the impugned order under appeal no. 576/2022
dated 27.10.2023 .”

2. The petitioner Mr. Ram Nath Yadav is the father in law of respondent
no. 2 i.e. Mrs. Krishna and the father of respondent no. 3 i.e. Mr.
Chandradeep Yadav.
3. The Petitioner, Mr. Ram Nath Yadav, is a Senior Citizen aged about
72 years. He is a retired Delhi Police officer, having served for
approximately 37 years and retired in December 2008. He is a heart patient
and suffers from old-age ailments. The Petitioner is the father-in-law of
Respondent No.2, Smt. Krishna, and the father of Respondent No.3, Sh.
Chandradeep Yadav, who are husband and wife.
4. He claimed to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No. Z
2A-79/1, Gali No.4, Durga Park, South-West, New Delhi-110045 ('the
property'). The property consists of ground floor, first floor and one room set
on the second floor. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be residing
on the ground floor, whereas, according to the Petitioner, the remaining
floors have been kept under lock by the said Respondents.
5. The Petitioner invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“ Act of 2007 ”) and the Delhi
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009
(“ Rules of 2009 ”), for eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the
property, under Case No. 1/108/2021 before the District Magistrate/Senior
Citizen Tribunal, South-West.
6. In his complaint before the District Magistrate, the Petitioner seems to
have alleged that the daughter-in-law is quarrelsome and has disturbed the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 2 of 6

peace of the household. On account of the quarrel with Respondent No.2,
the Petitioner made a complaint to Police on 25.07.2021. The District
Magistrate then directed a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(“ SDM ”). The SDM in his report dated 26.02.2022 stated that there was no
property dispute, that the property is in the name of the Petitioner, and that
the Petitioner had been dispossessed by the Respondents.
7. The District Magistrate, however, on consideration of the facts and
circumstances, found that the eviction proceedings were initiated on account
of matrimonial discord between the daughter-in-law and her husband, and
did not find any material to infer ill-treatment against the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed vide orders dated 24.06.2022 and
13.08.2022.
8. On an appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate
Authority/Divisional Commissioner, the Appellate Authority concurred with
the view taken by the District Magistrate and rejected the appeal vide
impugned order. The relevant paragraph 8 of the order passed by the
Divisional Commissioner is extracted hereunder:
“8 . This appellate authority concurs with the findings of the District
Magistrate. There is no element of ill-treatment and harassment at the
hands of the respondent no. 1 and the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act,
2007 is being used by the appellant in collusion with his son to oust the
respondent no. 1 from her shared household. The appellant failed to show
how he is being ill-treated. In fact it is a classic case of collusion. It is also
relevant to note that the Domestic Violence act too is pending between the
parties. The daughter-in-law is not a doormat. The daughter-in-law
cannot be evicted by misusing the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, when there is
estranged relations between son and daughter-in-law. It is not in the
interest of justice to evict respondent no. 1 from the property in question.
The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in S. Vanitha Case is
applicable to the present case. Accordingly appeal is hereby dismissed.
Impugned order is upheld.”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 3 of 6

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, as of now,
there are no proceedings pending under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“ DV Act ”).
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the Petitioner has not been evicted;
instead, the Petitioner had voluntarily left the house in question. Learned
counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further submits that Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 have no objection if the Petitioner stays with them. Even otherwise,
they only occupy the ground floor and the first and second floors are still
available for the Petitioner to stay peacefully.
1
11. This Court in Darshna v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , held that the
provisions of the Act and the Rules must be liberally construed as one of the
primary objects of the Act is to protect the life and property of the Senior
Citizens.
12. Simultaneously, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 is a special legislation enacted for the protection of women from
domestic violence and provides, under Section 17 read with Section 19, for a
woman’s right to reside in a shared household. The expression “shared
household” is defined in Section 2(s) of the PWDVA to mean a household
where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic
relationship either singly or along with the respondent.
13. The governing legal position on the interaction between the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDVA, 2005 was authoritatively laid down by
the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru

1
W.P.(C) 10463/2015, decided on 15.03.2017.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 4 of 6

2
Urban District & Ors. Supreme Court held that the summary eviction
procedure under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to override a
woman’s right to reside in her shared household as protected by the
PWDVA. The claim that the premises constitute a shared household would
have to be determined by the appropriate forum and cannot simply be
obviated by exercising summary eviction powers under the Senior Citizens
Act.
14. The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha further held that both Statutes must
be construed harmoniously and that the dominant purpose of each must be
analysed to determine which should prevail in the event of conflict. The
ratio was specifically guided by the unique facts of that case, a deserted wife
with no other shelter, facing eviction from property that had been transferred
to defeat her residential rights. The Court was emphatic that such a transfer
was being used as a device to defeat the claims of the daughter-in-law.
15. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel and the
material on record, it is found that in the absence of material warranting
eviction of Respondent No. 2 and 3, particularly in the context of the factual
finding of both the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority,
interference with the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and
the Divisional Commissioner is not warranted at this stage.
16. It is also material to note, as has been brought to the Court’s attention,
that as of now there are no proceedings pending under the PWDVA. This
circumstance further reinforces that the Petitioner’s right to reside in his own
property on the first and second floors cannot be denied.
17. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to stay in the property in

2
(2021) 15 SCC 730.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 5 of 6

question on first and second floors. If the parties amicably decides any other
mechanism/ arrangement including to allow the petitioner to stay at the
ground floor looking at his old age, the said aspect is left open to be
explored.
18. If the Petitioner faces any difficulty or obstruction from respondent
nos. 2 and 3, he shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Station House
Officer, who shall ensure that the Petitioner is able to peacefully reside in
the property without obstruction.

19. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 19, 2026
aks/NK
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
16:50:13
W.P.(C) 774/2024 Page 6 of 6