Kiran Arora vs Kanta Devi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 29 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010829572025
+ W.P.(C) 16467/2025 & CM APPL. 67394/2025
KIRAN ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate
from DHCLSC with Ms.
Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.
versus
KANTA DEVI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate
for R1.
Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, 1950, seeks to challenge and set aside the Appellate Order
dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority / Divisional
Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in
Appeal No. 1008/2024/517-51.
Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Appellate Authority
upheld the Eviction Order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned
District Magistrate (South-West), New Delhi in Case ID No. 35088,
whereby the Petitioner – Smt. Kiran Arora was directed to vacate the
property bearing No. RZ F44/21A, Gali No. 44, Sadh Nagar, Part-2,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
Palam Village (" Subject Property ").
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 – Smt.
Kanta Devi is the mother of the Petitioner, residing on the First Floor
of the Subject Property. The Petitioner is the biological daughter, a
person with visual disability ( certified 100% loss of vision in her left
eye and approximately 30% visibility in her right eye ), residing on the
Second Floor of the Subject Property along with her husband and 10-
year-old daughter, since 2017.
3. While Respondent No. 1 asserts absolute ownership over the
premises, the Petitioner contends that the property was acquired from
the sale proceeds of ancestral HUF property belonging to her late
father/husband of Respondent No. 1, Sh. Shyam Lal Kapoor, who died
intestate on 05.11.2009, making the Petitioner a co-sharer/legal heir
under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of the subject property.
4. It is alleged that due to the ongoing disputes regarding the
ownership of the subject property inter-se the parties, in 2018, the
Petitioner’s younger sister, Smt. Jyoti got made a false and fabricated
Surviving Members Certificate without including the name of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner had also filed a complaint regarding the
same before the SDM in the year 2020.
5. Petitioner has further alleged that in the year 2021 she
developed several health issues, leading to her visual disability.
During this period, the Respondent No. 1/mother and younger sister,
started ill-treating her, her husband and minor daughter and threatened
to dispossess them from the subject property. Consequently, she filed
complaints before the police authorities against them and also
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
instituted proceedings Ct. Case No. 2561/22 under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (" DV Act ")
on 17.12.2022 against Respondent No. 1 and her sister, which remains
pending before the learned Mahila Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
6. On 05.07.2023, allegedly as a counter blast, the Respondent No.
1 filed an application under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (" Senior Citizens
Rules ") before the learned District Magistrate seeking summary
eviction of the Petitioner from the Subject Property on grounds of
alleged harassment and ill-treatment, claiming herself to be the sole
owner of the property.
7. In compliance with the procedure under Rule 22(3)(1)(ii)–(iii)
of the Senior Citizens Rules, the learned District Magistrate
requisitioned an enquiry report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(SDM, Dwarka). The statutory Enquiry Report dated 04.04.2024
submitted by the Ld. SDM recorded the following findings:
a. Property Dispute: Yes, it is a property dispute.
b. Ownership of Property: Not verified.
c. Whether any real threat to the Complainant: Not verified.
d. Valid reason for eviction: The complainant wants to evict the
respondent from the suit property.
8. The learned District Magistrate, vide order dated 29.08.2024,
allowed the eviction application, by observing that prima facie
ownership of the Respondent No. 1 and allegations of harassment
stand established.
9. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the above order
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide the Impugned
Order dated 08.10.2025 by returning findings that the learned District
Magistrate has already opined that the Respondent No. 1 was harassed
and the questions of ownership are beyond the scope of eviction
proceedings and can only be adjudicated by the competent civil court.
10. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has essentially contended
that the eviction order could not have been upheld when the
ownership of the property and the threat/harassment remained
unverified by the SDM. It is further contended that the Respondent
No. 1 is not the sole owner of the property, rather Petitioner is one of
the co-owners of the subject property as the same was purchased by
her father late Sh. Shyam Lal Kapoor, by selling his ancestral property
in Ludhiana. Since the father died intestate, the share devolved upon
her as well.
12. On being pointedly asked, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents, has explained that the Respondent No. 1 is the sole
owner of the property and the property was purchased in her name has
been the admitted case of the Petitioner and submitted that even
otherwise, concrete findings on the issues of title/ ownership of the
property are not required to be adjudicated in eviction proceedings.
13. However, when asked, the Respondent has not been able to
show the relevant registered conveyance documents vesting absolute
ownership with the Respondent No.1.
14. It also remains uncontroverted that the learned SDM could
neither verify the ownership of the property and the allegations of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
harassment or threat.
15. Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizens Rules provides for a
mechanism of summary eviction where the District Magistrate, upon
consideration of the material placed before him, is satisfied that the
child or legal heir, while residing in the property of the senior citizen,
is subjecting the senior citizen to ill-treatment or harassment and is not
maintaining them.
16. There can be no dispute with the settled proposition that
proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are summary in nature and
the authorities exercising jurisdiction thereunder are not expected to
undertake a detailed adjudication of complicated questions of title or
ownership, which would appropriately fall within the domain of the
competent civil court. Equally, the allegations of ill-treatment or
harassment are not required to be established in the manner of a
criminal trial.
17. However, in the present case, the statutory enquiry conducted
by the SDM records that the ownership of the Subject Property could
not be verified and, significantly, that the existence of any real threat
to the complainant could also not be verified . The report further
records that the reason for seeking eviction is that the complainant
sought eviction of the respondent from the property . While the
aforesaid report may not, by itself, be conclusive of the issues
involved, however, if the learned District Magistrate intended to arrive
at a conclusion contrary to the findings of the SDM, it was incumbent
upon him to indicate that some material or circumstance formed the
basis of its satisfaction.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
18. However, a perusal of the eviction order dated 29.08.2024
indicates that the learned District Magistrate has merely recorded a
conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 was subjected to harassment and
physical abuse by the Petitioner, without disclosing the material
forming the basis of such conclusion. The learned Appellate
Authority, in turn, has affirmed the eviction order without
independently examining this aspect.
19. Further, the title is the property remains seriously disputed, and
the SDM report also states that there is a dispute regarding the
property. The ownership also was, undisputedly, not verified by the
SDM. This Court also cannot remain oblivious to the allegations of
harassment made by the Petitioner as well, a disabled woman
suffering from 100% vision loss in one eye and partial vision in the
other, upon the younger sister (who is also living with the mother),
regarding her intention to grab the subject property for which an
allegedly false surviving member certificate has been submitted by
her.
20. Thus, considering the totality of circumstance, ordering the total
eviction of a disabled daughter and her minor child would create an
extreme and disproportionate hardship.
21. In view of the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed,
and the Impugned Order dated 08.10.2025 and the underlying
Eviction Order dated 29.08.2024 are hereby quashed and set aside.
22. Needless to state, this Court has not returned any conclusive
findings on the title of the property and allegations of
harassment/violence. The same have been assessed only with respect
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
to the subject proceedings.
23. The parties are at liberty to avail appropriate civil remedies in
accordance with law.
24. If any future grievance arises regarding the peaceful enjoyment
of the property, the Respondent No. 1 shall have liberty to approach
the learned District Magistrate.
25. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, along with pending
application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16467/2025 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52