Smt Ritu Taneja & Anr. vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ W.P.(C) 12721/2023 and CM APPL. 25845/2026
SMT RITU TANEJA
W/O LATE PANKAJ TANEJA
HOUSE NO. B-3/81, SAFDARJUNG
ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI - 110029
SH. KHUSHAAL TANEJA
S/O LATE PANKAJ TANEJA
HOUSE NO. B-3/81, SAFDARJUNG
ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI – 110029 .... PETITIONERS
(Through: Ms. Mouli Bhattacharjee, Advocate.)
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
5, SHAM NATH MARG, DELHI-110054
EMAIL: [email protected]
MR. OM PRAKASH TANEJA
S/O LATE SHRI DATARAM TANEJA
HOUSE NO. B-3/81, SAFDARJUNG
ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI - 110029
EMAIL: [email protected], [email protected]
MRS. SAVITRI TANEJA
W/O MR. OM PRAKASH TANEJA
HOUSE NO. B-3/81, SAFDARJUNG
ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI - 110029
EMAIL: [email protected]
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
.... RESPONDENTS
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
(Through: Ms Avni Singh, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Mr Vaibhav
Sharma, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Archana Gaur, DHCLSC, Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Mr.
Deepu Kumar, Advocates for R-2 and 3.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Pronounced on: 08.05.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
The Petitioners are mother and son, respectively. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
are the in-laws of Petitioner No.1.
2. The present petition has been instituted, challenging an order dated
28.08.2023 (hereinafter “ Impugned Common Order ” ) passed by the Divisional
Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 504/2022 and 505/2022 under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “Senior Citizens
Act” ). By way of the Impugned Common Order, the Divisional Commissioner has
allowed Appeal No. 504/2022 preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed
Appeal No. 505/2022 preferred by the Petitioners, thereby, directing the Petitioners
to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the entire property, including the
ground floor shop, property bearing no. B-3/81, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi,
(hereinafter “Subject Property” ) in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Late Mr. Pankaj Taneja on 11.09.2000. After
their marriage, Petitioner No. 1 shifted to the first floor of the Subject Property.
Subsequently, Late Mr. Taneja started running a grocery store on the first portion
of the ground floor i.e. (veranda at ground floor) of the Subject Property.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the business and assets of the family were
being managed collectively and that certain assurances were extended by
Respondent No. 2 with regard to the distribution of properties amongst his sons. It
is further averred that a registered Will dated 29.01.2021 was executed by
Respondent No. 2, purportedly conferring rights in favour of the children of
Petitioner No. 1.
5. Following the demise of Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja on 18.02.2020, disputes
arose between the Petitioners and Respondents (in-laws). Thereafter, Respondents
(in-laws) filed a complaint dated 09.11.2020 before the District Magistrate, Senior
Citizens Act read with Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter “Rules 2009” ) framed
thereunder, seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the Subject Property on
account of ill treatment and non-maintenance.
6. Pursuant to the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and a report dated 08.12.2021 was submitted. Vide the said
inquiry report, it was noted that the ownership of the Subject Property stood in the
name of Respondent No. 2. Upon consideration of the material on record and the
SDM’s inquiry report, the Maintenance Tribunal held that while no conclusive
finding of harassment or maintenance neglect was established, the interference by
the Petitioners in the ground floor portion adversely affected the senior citizens’
peaceful enjoyment of their property. Accordingly, the District Magistrate passed
an order dated 12.04.2022, whereby, the complaint of the senior citizens’ was
partly allowed and the Petitioners were directed to vacate the ground floor portion
of the Subject Property.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred appeals before the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Divisional Commissioner. The Respondents (in-laws), in Appeal No. 504/2022,
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
contended that the relief granted by the Maintenance Tribunal (District Magistrate)
was insufficient, and sought eviction of the Petitioners from the entire Subject
Property, pressing that their right to reside peacefully could not be secured till the
Petitioners continue to occupy any part of the premises. On the contrary, the
Petitioners, in Appeal No. 505/2022, challenged the limited eviction directed by
the Tribunal, reiterating their claim of a shared household, disputing allegations of
ill-treatment, and asserting entitlement and claims over assets of the deceased
husband.
8. Upon consideration of the rival appeals, the learned Divisional Commissioner
held that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent as to
render their continued cohabitation wholly untenable. It was further observed that the
grievances urged by the Petitioners, insofar as they related to property rights, financial
entitlements, and claims over the estate of the deceased, were matters that fell outside
the purview and ambit of the Senior Citizens Act, and could not be adjudicated upon
within the limited framework of proceedings thereunder. Accordingly, the Divisional
Commissioner passed the Impugned Common Order, culminating in the direction
for eviction of the Petitioners from the entire premises and further directing
Respondents (in-laws) to submit original documents of Khirki Extension property
as soon as the Petitioners vacate the Subject Property. Aggrieved by the Impugned
Common Order, the Petitioners have approached this Court for setting aside of the
said Impugned Common Order.
Submissions
9. Ms. Mouli Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners, has advanced the following submissions:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
a. After the demise of the Petitioner’s husband, Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja, the
Respondents (in-laws) have been making continuous efforts to evict the
Petitioners from the Subject Property, which is asserted to be her shared
household. It is submitted that the Respondents are financially well-off, and
have multiple immovable properties, bank accounts, and financial
investments. Despite their sound financial condition, they have allegedly
failed to provide any financial support to the Petitioners.
b. The properties owned by father-in-law have been acquired from ancestral
business and the Petitioner’s late husband had been contributing to the family
business since his childhood and, therefore, had a legitimate share in such
assets. Further, Respondent No. 2 and other family members have
appropriated the benefits arising from Life Insurance Company (hereinafter
„LIC‟ ) policies and other financial instruments standing in the name of the
Petitioner’s deceased husband. The Petitioner No.1 asserts that she and her
children, being the lawful heirs, are entitled to a rightful share in such
financial benefits.
c. Furthermore, the Petitioner No.1 submits that far from neglecting the
Respondents, she has been a conscientious and attentive daughter-in-law,
having personally tended to and cared for Respondent No. 3, who is stated to
be suffering from a mental illness. She categorically denies each and every
allegation of ill-treatment, neglect, and misconduct levelled against her, and
asserts that she has at all times conducted herself with dignity towards the
Respondents. It is further the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 2
and 3 have, with a view to coercing and harassing the Petitioners and
engineering grounds for their forcible eviction from the Subject Property,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
filed multiple complaints before the police authorities, which are alleged to
be false and frivolous.
10. Per contra , Ms. Archana Gaur learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted as under: -
a. Respondents (in-laws) are the absolute owners of the Subject Property, being
their self-acquired property, and have been subjected to continuous harassment and
ill-treatment at the hand of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the Respondents had
cordial relations with his late son and that the discord in the family arose solely due
to the conduct of the Petitioner No.1, who allegedly caused mental distress to the
deceased during his lifetime, and whose actions also resulted in severe emotional
trauma to Respondent No. 3 leading to strained family relations and eventual
separate living arrangements within the Subject Property.
b. The Petitioner (daughter-in-law) is a MCD school Government teacher
earning a substantial salary of more than 1 Lakh Rupees and is capable of
maintaining herself and the Children. Further, all premiums in respect of insurance
policies of Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja was paid by the Respondents (in-laws).
Although the Petitioner has initiated civil proceedings claiming such benefits, the
Respondent had expressed willingness to settle the matter subject to withdrawal of
cases, which was not accepted by the Petitioner. It is contended that the shop
constructed in the verandah of the ground floor obstructs air and sunlight, thereby,
adversely affecting the living conditions of the senior citizens and rendering their
residence unhealthy.
c. Furthermore, the Respondents (in-laws) had purchased a property at Khirki
Extension in the name of their late son, and after his demise, the Petitioner took
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
possession of the same by breaking open the locks, no legal action was initiated by
the Respondents in view of his intention to benefit his son’s family. Furthermore,
the Respondents (in-laws) have acted fairly by offering to hand over the original
documents of the Khirki Extension property as well as two plots in Faridabad to
the Petitioner, subject to her vacating the Subject Property.
11. I have heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have
perused the record.
Analysis
12. Before proceeding to examine the facts of the present case, it would be
apposite to delineate the legal framework governing the exercise of powers under
the Senior Citizens Act, particularly in relation to eviction of children or legal heirs
from property owned by senior citizens.
13. The object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act is no longer res integra .
The statute is a piece of beneficial and social welfare legislation, enacted with the
avowed intent of ensuring that senior citizens are able to lead a life of dignity,
security, and autonomy in the evening of their lives. The legislative scheme
recognizes the increasing vulnerability of aged parents to neglect, abuse, and
dispossession at the hands of their own children or relatives, and therefore provides
for expeditious remedies, including eviction, to safeguard their life and property.
14. The Senior Citizens Act, read with the Rules framed in 2009, equips the
District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority with sufficient jurisdiction to pass
orders of eviction and such other directions as may be warranted in the facts and
circumstances of a given case. This jurisdiction is ordinarily invoked where a
senior citizen is found to have been subjected to neglect, ill-treatment, or denial of
maintenance, or where their right to reside in and enjoy their property peacefully
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
stands threatened or obstructed. Importantly, the proceedings under the Act are
designed to be summary in character, ensuring that senior citizens receive speedy
and meaningful relief without being subjected to prolonged litigation.
15. It is well settled that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be
transmuted into a forum for the determination of intricate civil disputes pertaining
to ownership, co-ownership, inheritance, or claims arising out of alleged ancestral
property. Such issues fall squarely within the domain of competent civil Courts.
The jurisdiction of the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act is circumscribed to
the limited but significant objective of protecting senior citizens and ensuring that
they are able to reside peacefully and securely in their own property without
interference.
16. It is a settled and uncontested proposition of law that the authorities under
the Senior Citizens Act are not equipped, nor indeed intended, to venture into the
issues of complex civil disputes. Such matters demand careful examination of title,
evidence, and competing legal rights, an exercise that must be undertaken before a
competent civil Court.
17. The primary issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether
the Impugned Common Order directing eviction of the Petitioners from the entire
Subject Property, in exercise of powers under the Senior Citizens Act, suffers from
any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is not in dispute that
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are senior citizens and the recorded owners of the Subject
Property. The Petitioners have not placed any material on record to dislodge or
even prima facie impeach the ownership of Respondent no. 2 in proceedings of
this summary nature.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
18. The record further reveals that relations between the parties have become
severely acrimonious. The existence of a hostile and embittered environment
clearly indicates that the parties are unable to reside together under the same roof
without constant friction. The material portion of the Impugned Common Order
reads as under:
“13. From the arguments of both the sides and facts and circumstances
of the case, this appellate authority has no doubt that the relations are
acrimonious between them and they can't reside together under the same
roof. There are police complaints as well. In fact, it is clearly evident
from the submissions of Smt. Ritu Taneja that she and her child have a
property dispute with senior citizen i.e Sh. Om Praksh Taneja. The case
of Smt. Ritu Taneja revolves around the claim in LIC policies and
properties purchased from the funds of the ancestral business………
19. A perusal of the aforesaid material portion indicates that the Appellate
Authority has undertaken a considered evaluation of the factual matrix and has
arrived at a categorical finding that the relationship between the parties is deeply
strained, rendering their continued cohabitation under the same roof wholly
unworkable. It further emerges that the dispute between the parties is not confined
to issues of maintenance or residence simpliciter, but is inextricably intertwined
with claims relating to alleged entitlement in LIC policies and properties
purportedly derived from ancestral business, which are matters falling beyond the
limited scope of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act.
20. The findings of the Appellate Authority also reflect that the claim set up by
the Petitioners is essentially predicated upon assertions of proprietary or beneficial
interest in the assets of the family, rather than any demonstrable right to resist
eviction in proceedings of the present nature. The emphasis placed by the
Petitioners on financial entitlements and property claims reinforces the conclusion
that the dispute is, in substance, civil in character, and cannot be adjudicated within
the summary jurisdiction contemplated under the Senior Citizens Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
21. Insofar as the plea of “shared household” is concerned, the same has been
defined in Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (hereinafter „Domestic Violence Act‟ ). Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence
Act reads as under:
“2(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives
or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with
the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either
jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by
either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent
or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes
such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent
is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has
any right, title or interest in the shared household;
22. A perusal of the same indicates that a "shared household" means a
household where a person lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship
either singly or with others. The said expression includes a household whether
owned or tenanted, either jointly or owned or tenanted singly.
23. The Supreme Court in the S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner,
1
Respondents Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. has held that the protection under
the Domestic Violence Act cannot be overridden by simply invoking the
provisions of the Senior Citizen Act through summary proceedings. The woman’s
right to reside in a shared household must be balanced against the rights of the
Senior Citizens to live in peace, especially when the household in question belongs
to them. In situations where both the statutes overlap, a harmonious construction
must be adopted, balancing the daughter in law's right to reside in a shared
household against the senior citizen's right to a tranquil life. The Courts must
ensure that neither right is obliterated, but instead coexists to the extent possible.
1
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 897
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
24. However, in the facts of the instant case, it is not a situation, wherein, the
daughter-in-law is a destitute or vulnerable individual, or a victim of domestic
violence requiring protection in the form of continued residence in the shared
household. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner No. 1 is a gainfully
employed Government teacher with a stable and independent source of income,
and her children are also grown up. The dispute between the parties, as borne out
from the pleadings and record, is not one arising out of economic deprivation or
lack of shelter, but is primarily centered around competing claims relating to LIC
policies and alleged rights in properties stated to have been derived from ancestral
business. The material portion of the Impugned Common Order is extracted as
under:
“13. From the arguments of both the sides and facts and circumstances of
the case, this appellate authority has no doubt that the relations are
acrimonious between them and they can't reside together under the same
roof. There are police complaints as well. Infact it is clearly evident from
the submissions of Smt. Ritu Taneja that she and her child have a property
dispute with senior citizen i.e Sh. Om Praksh Taneja. The case of Smt. Ritu
Taneja revolves around the claim in LIC policies and properties purchased
from the funds of the ancestral business. It is not the situation where the
daughter-in-law is a poor lady, victim of domestic violence and
matrimonial discord. Herein this case she is a Government employee
working as a teacher in a MCD School and her children are grown up too.
It is also relevant to note that it is Smt. Ritu Taneja's own case that she
along with her family started residing in the property in question with the
permission of Sh. Om Parkash Taneja.”
25. Even assuming that the Subject Property in the instant case answers share
household description within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act, the
Petitioners cannot assert an indefeasible right to continue in occupation of the very
same premises in perpetuity. The right of residence is a protective right and not a
proprietary one, and cannot be invoked to defeat the legitimate claim of senior
citizens to secure peaceful enjoyment of their property. In circumstances where
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
cohabitation has become wholly unworkable, the balance must tilt in favour of the
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
senior citizens, while leaving it open to the Petitioners to avail appropriate
remedies, including alternate accommodation, in accordance with law.
2
26. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja ,
authoritatively held that while a daughter-in-law has a statutory right of residence
in a “shared household” under Sections 17 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act,
such right does not translate into any proprietary or ownership interest in the
property belonging to the in-laws. The right of residence is a protective right,
intended to secure shelter, and is subject to the balancing of competing rights,
including the right of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their property. It was
further held that in appropriate cases, the Court may direct eviction of the
daughter-in-law from the shared household, provided that suitable alternate
accommodation or rent in lieu, thereof, is made available to her in terms of Section
19(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence Act.
27. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position by the petitioner that an alternative
accommodation at Khirki Extension is in possession of the Petitioners, and that
Respondent No. 2 has expressed willingness to hand over the documents of the
same as well as other two plots in Faridabad, subject to vacation of the Subject
Property. The same has been recorded in the Impugned Common Order and is
extracted as under:
“16. Smt. Ritu Taneja admits that she is in possession of property in Khirki
Extn. but submitted that documents of the property are in possession of Sh.
Om Parkash Taneja. In rebuttal Sh. Om Prakash Taneja submitted that he is
having documents as he purchased the said property but he has no difficulty
in giving the same to Smt. Ritu Taneja subject to the condition that she shall
vacate the property in question. On issue of distribution of properties raised
by Smt. Ritu Taneja, Sh. Om Parkash Taneja further fairly offered to Smt.
Ritu Taneja from his side the two plots in Faridabad. He stated that he is
also ready to handover the original documents of the same to Smt. Ritu
2
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 784
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Taneja. Sh. Om Parkash Taneja submitted that he will deposit the original
documents of Faridabad plots and property at Khirki Extn.in the office of
this appellate authority which shall be handed over to Smt. Ritu Taneja after
she vacates the property in question.
28. The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that the assets of the
family are traceable to ancestral business and that Late Sh. Pankaj Taneja had a
subsisting share, therein, raises disputed questions of fact as well as law, including
issues relating to the nature of the property, existence of any coparcenary or joint
family arrangement, and the extent of alleged beneficial or proprietary rights. Such
questions necessarily require detailed examination of evidence, including
documentary proof, accounts, and possibly oral testimony, which cannot be
satisfactorily undertaken within the summary framework of proceedings under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The jurisdiction under the said Act is neither intended
nor equipped to adjudicate upon such claims and consequently, such pleas cannot
constitute a legally sustainable defence to an eviction order sought for the
protection of senior citizens’ right to peaceful residence.
29. In a similar vein, the claim of the Petitioners with respect to entitlement to
amounts under LIC policies and other financial instruments standing in the name
of the deceased also travels beyond the permissible scope of inquiry under the Act.
The determination of such rights would fall outside the jurisdiction of this Court
under these proceedings, and therefore, cannot be permitted to impede or dilute the
exercise of statutory powers by the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act.
30. In view of the aforesaid, this Court takes note of the fact that the Petitioners
are not without recourse or means. Petitioner No. 1 is admittedly employed as a
Government teacher and is financially independent. Further, an alternative property
at Khirki Extension is in possession of the Petitioners, and Respondent No. 2 is
willing to hand over documents of the same, along with two plots at Faridabad,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
subject to vacation of the Subject Property.
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
31. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
limited. Unless the Impugned Order is shown to be vitiated by patent illegality,
arbitrariness, or perversity, this Court would be slow to interfere with findings of
fact recorded by the competent authority in the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction.
Upon a careful perusal of the Impugned Common Order, this Court finds that the
Appellate Authority has duly considered the material on record, the rival
submissions of the parties, and the object and purpose of the statute, and has
passed a reasoned order directing eviction of the Petitioners so as to secure the
peaceful residence and dignity of the senior citizens.
32. In view of the aforenoted, this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned
Common Order warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
33. Let the Respondents (in-laws) to deposit papers of alternate accommodation
as well as the Faridabad property before the Divisional Commissioner within thirty
days from the date of receipt of the order. Let Petitioners to vacate the Subject
Property within 45 days therefrom.
34. Neither party to create any third-party rights in the vacated Subject Property
as well as the property being given to the Petitioner, without the permission of the
competent Court.
35. Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the instant petition along with
pending application, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 08, 2026
ss
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
11:05:40