Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 19 December, 2024
th
Pronounced on: 07 January, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 5068/2022 & CM APPLs. 15054/2022, 43616/2024
SMT. TABASSUM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kotla Harshvardhan, Ms. G.
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
AMNA BEGUM & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh,
Advocate. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel
Counsel (Civil), GNCTD for R-3 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
nd
1. The present writ petition impugns order dated 2 March, 2022
whereby the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of its powers under Rule
22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
1
Citizens Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2016, upheld the eviction of the
th
Petitioners No. 1 to 4. The impugned order stems from order dated 13
August, 2020, issued by the District Magistrate (North-East), permitting
Respondent No. 1 to reclaim possession of her property bearing No. C-
25/28, Gali No. 3, Rishi Kardam Marg, Chauhan Bangar, Seelampur, Delhi-
1
“the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
2
110053, through eviction of the Petitioners.
THE PARTIES
2. The present petition is filed by Ms. Tabassum (Petitioner No. 1) who
is married to Mr. Aslam Parvez (Petitioner No. 4). Together, they have two
children, who are Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in these proceedings.
3. Ms. Amna Begum (Respondent No. 1), an elderly senior citizen, is the
mother of Mr. Aslam Parvez, Mr. Mohammad Shahid (Respondent No. 4)
and Ms. Shabana (Respondent No. 2). Mr. Shahid is married to Ms. Naima
(Respondent No. 5) while Ms. Shabana remains unmarried.
4. The family resides in the subject property as follows: Ms. Tabassum,
Mr. Aslam Parvez and their children occupy the second floor; Mr.
Mohammad Shahid and Ms. Naima reside on the ground floor and Ms.
Amna Begum lives on the first floor with Ms. Shabana. As a senior citizen,
Ms. Amna Begum asserts her right to exclusive possession of the entire
property, citing specific legal protections under the Maintenance and
3
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
PETITIONERS’ CASE
5. Counsel for Petitioners summarizes the case of the Petitioners as
follows:
5.1. Petitioner No. 1 married Petitioner No. 4 in 2014. Soon after the
marriage, Respondent No. 2 allegedly made demands for dowry, which
Petitioner No. 1 was unable to fulfil. This became a constant source of
discord in the family. Due to insufficient dowry, Respondent No. 2
2
“the subject property”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
instigated Respondent No. 1 to ask the Petitioner No. 4 to divorce the
Petitioner No. 1 and expel her from the matrimonial house.
5.2. Being provoked by Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 published a
th
newspaper advertisement on 11 January, 2015 disowning both her sons,
their wives and their children from her inheritance. This was followed by a
th
complaint dated 19 January, 2015 made by Respondent No. 1 against the
Petitioners with the Police Station, Seelampur.
5.3. Petitioner No. 1 states that she has been subject to constant physical
and mental harassment by Respondents No. 1 and 2 since 2014. In
th
particular, she cites the instance which took place on 26 April, 2016 where
she was subject to physical assault at the hands of Respondents No. 1 and 2.
As a result, she initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from
th 4
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 20 September, 2019. In respect of the
th
said complaint, on 26 October, 2021, the Mahila Court (Karkardooma
Courts) passed a protection order in favour of Petitioner No. 1 under Section
18 of the DV Act.
5.4. The Petitioners contend that in retaliation to the DV Act proceedings,
Respondent No. 1 disconnected the electricity of the floor where the
Petitioners reside, despite regular payments made by them. In this regard,
5
Petitioners filed a suit bearing C.S. No. 569/2021 with the Karkardooma
Courts seeking permanent injunction and Petitioners’ application under
Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which
th st
was dismissed through order dated 26 August, 2022. Ultimately, on 1
3
“the Senior Citizens Act”
4
“the DV Act”
5
titled Tabassum v. Shabana
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
March, 2024, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
th
5.5. On 16 April, 2019, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint accusing the
Petitioners of physical and mental abuse and accordingly, sought their
eviction from the subject property. This request was allowed by the District
th
Magistrate through the impugned order dated 13 August, 2020. Aggrieved
by the said order, Petitioners preferred an appeal to the Divisional
Commissioner which was dismissed after hearing the parties through
nd
impugned order dated 2 March, 2022.
5.6. The Petitioners argued that the impugned order of the Divisional
Commissioner is arbitrary and is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
They contended that the order disregards the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.
6
Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru which emphasizes the need
to balance the provisions of the DV Act with the Senior Citizens Act.
Petitioner No. 1 has a right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act
which has completely been ignored by the authorities.
5.7. Petitioner No. 4 also asserted his right over the subject property by
stating that he had borne all expenses in the construction of the property and
thus, being a legal heir, has rights therein.
5.8. The Petitioners also highlighted their precarious financial situation,
asserting that they lack a stable income and are unable to afford alternative
housing. They allege that Respondent No. 1, in contrast, owns a three-story
house and a shop in the market, from which she earns a monthly rental
income.
6
(2021) 15 SCC 730
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS
6. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 while asserting Respondent No. 1’s
title over the subject property, urged as follows:
6.1. The proceedings initiated by Petitioner No. 1 under the DV Act are
merely a counterblast to the proceedings for eviction initiated by
th
Respondent No. 1 on 16 April, 2019. These actions, Respondent No. 1
contended, demonstrate an attempt to undermine her legitimate rights as a
senior citizen to peaceful possession of her property.
6.2. The Petitioners have never contributed towards the maintenance or
upkeep of the subject property. Their claim of rights over the property is
baseless and appears to stem from a desire to continue occupying the
premises without any lawful entitlement.
6.3. The impugned order of the Divisional Commissioner categorically
notes that the Petitioners failed to effectively counter the allegations of ill-
treatment made by Respondent No. 1. Indeed, the Petitioners have
consistently failed in their duties towards her welfare, subjecting her to
various forms of harassment. This includes cutting off her access to essential
areas such as the terrace, even for basic maintenance activities like water
tank repairs and obstructing light and air to the floor she occupies. These
actions have led to formal complaints to the SHO, Police Station Jafrabad.
6.4. Respondent No. 1 categorically denies any undue influence exerted by
Respondent No. 2 in the eviction proceedings. She further contended that
her daughter, Ms. Shabana, had no role in the eviction process and should
not have been impleaded as a party in the present petition.
6.5. In light of the hostile and oppressive environment she is being
subjected to, Respondent No. 1 asserted her fundamental right to live in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
peace and dignity, particularly in the twilight years of her life. Her primary
objective is to restore her security and tranquillity in her own home, free
from harassment and undue disturbance.
COURT ORDERS
th
7. On 28 March, 2022, as an interim measure, the Court stayed the
impugned orders. The Petitioners undertook not to ill-treat or interfere with
Respondent No. 1’s stay in the subject property, thus ensuring her peace and
security in the subject property.
th
8. By order dated 12 December 2022, interim relief was extended to
Respondent No. 2, safeguarding her right to reside on the first floor of the
property alongside her mother, Respondent No. 1. In addition, the Court
directed the concerned SHO to submit a status report detailing the actual
position regarding the disputes between the Petitioners and Respondents, as
well as the specific complaints raised.
th
9. On 6 March, 2023, it was recorded that Petitioners occupied the
subject property which is admittedly owned by Respondent No. 1. In view
thereof, the Petitioners were directed to pay a sum of INR 3,000/- per month
as occupational charges with effect from March, 2023. Additionally, they
were directed to clear all the electricity dues, if any, subject to which the
electricity may be restored by the Electricity Department to the second floor.
The Petitioners were permitted to file an application if the electricity
connection was not restored.
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the Petitioners filed CM
APPL. 24858/2023 seeking directions for installing electricity connection to
the second floor of the subject property. The Petitioners also sought the bank
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
th
account details of Respondent No.1 to comply with the order dated 6
March, 2021. It was noted that the Respondent No. 1 did not wish to share
her bank account details and payment was directed to be made by way of
cash or cheque. Further, directions were issued to BSES to install a new
electricity meter for the second floor without requiring a no-objection
certificate from Respondents No. 1 and 2. The status report filed by the SHO
confirmed that Petitioner No. 1 resides on the second floor of the property.
th
11. On 11 September, 2024, this Court made a prima facie observation
that it is the primary duty of the husband to provide shelter to his wife. The
Court further noted that the Domestic Violence Act cannot be used as a tool
to compel a mother-in-law, especially one with claims under the Senior
Citizens Act, to provide housing for her son and daughter-in-law.
th
12. On 13 November, 2024, the Court provided the parties an
opportunity to explore an amicable resolution. However, as informed on the
last date of hearing, no settlement was reached. Consequently, the parties
were directed to present their arguments on the merits of the case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. Firstly, the Court shall deal with Petitioners’ application [CM APPL.
43616/2024], for amendment of the writ petition by incorporating grounds to
challenge the constitutional validity of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the Delhi
Senior Citizens Rules on which the arguments were argued alongside the
main writ petition.
14. The Petitioners primarily contended that the afore-noted provisions
infringe upon a woman’s right to reside in a shared household as guaranteed
under Section 17 of the DV Act. While acknowledging that the Division
Bench of this Court in Aarshya Gulati & Ors v. Government of NCT of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
7
Delhi has upheld the vires of Rules 22(3) and (4) of the Delhi Senior
Citizens Rules, the Petitioners highlight that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C)
18687/2019 against the said judgment, left the question of law open. They
further argued that the Division Bench in Aarshya Gulati failed to address
the need to balance the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens
Act with those of women under the DV Act. This omission, they assert,
gains particular significance in light of the subsequent Supreme Court
decision in S. Vanitha , which emphasizes the necessity of reconciling these
competing rights.
15. The Court finds the Petitioners’ arguments unpersuasive and
considers the application misconceived. While indeed the Supreme Court in
Aarshya Gulati left the question of law open, this fact alone does not render
the present challenge tenable. The mere absence of a definitive ruling from
the Supreme Court on the vires of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) does not negate the
binding nature of the Division Bench’s decision, which upheld the validity
of these provisions. Until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, this Court
remains bound by the Division Bench’s ruling, which continues to hold the
8
field. Moreover, the Petitioners have failed to advance any new or
substantive legal argument that would justify reconsideration of the Division
Bench’s findings. Their contention that Aarshya Gulati did not address the
balancing of competing rights under the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act
lacks force, as this very issue was comprehensively analysed by the
Supreme Court in S. Vanitha . The principles laid down in S. Vanitha do not
conflict with the ruling in Aarshya Gulati ; on the contrary, S. Vanitha
7
2019:DHC:2957-DB
8
See also: Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India , 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
reaffirms the need to reconcile rights under the DV Act and the Senior
Citizens Act, a principle that does not undermine the constitutional validity
of Rules 22(3) and 22(4). Hence, the Petitioners’ attempt to extrapolate a
broader implication from S. Vanitha is misplaced.
16. That apart, it is crucial to highlight that in the present case, no
allegations of domestic violence or mistreatment have been levelled by Ms.
Tabassum against her husband, Mr. Aslam Parvez or her mother-in-law, Ms.
Amna Begum. This factual context distinguishes the present matter from the
case of S. Vanitha , where competing rights under the DV Act and the Senior
Citizens Act required careful considered to strike a balance. In S. Vanitha ,
the claims arose from allegations of domestic violence within the shared
household, necessitating judicial intervention to reconcile these conflicting
rights. Here, however, Ms. Tabassum’s grievances are directed solely
against her sister-in-law, Ms. Shabana, without implicating her husband or
her mother-in-law, in any alleged acts of domestic violence. The right of
residence under the DV Act is enforceable primarily against the spouse, as it
arises from the concept of a shared household. In the absence of allegations
against Petitioner No. 4, the protective provisions of the DV Act cannot be
invoked to secure residence rights vis-à-vis other family members, such as
Respondent No. 1 or Ms. Shabana. Therefore, Ms. Tabassum’s claim lacks
the substantive basis required for adjudicating competing interests, as
contemplated in S. Vanitha .
17. Thus, it is apparent that the application represents an attempt to re-
open settled issues without presenting any novel or compelling arguments.
Such procedural tactics undermine the efficiency and the expeditious relief
envisioned under the Senior Citizens Act. The Petitioners are only
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
attempting to frustrate the expeditious relief envisaged under the Senior
Citizens Act, particularly when a senior citizen is deprived of peaceful
possession of her property during her advanced years. Consequently, the
application challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 22(3) and 22(4)
lacks merit and is dismissed as an attempt to prolong litigation.
18. The Court shall now proceed to examine the facts and contentions
raised impugning the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the
Divisional Commissioner.
19. A senior citizen’s right to seek eviction of their children stems from
Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016. This provision, read with the Senior
Citizens Act, requires the senior citizens to demonstrate a valid right, title or
interest in the property from which eviction is sought. In the present case,
the subject property was purchased by Late Mr. Abdul Sattar, the deceased
husband of Ms. Amna Begum. The Sale Deed and General Power of
Attorney in her name provide substantial proof of her ownership, sufficient
to assert her rights under the Senior Citizens Act.
20. Petitioner No. 4, Mr. Aslam Parvez, asserted a right over the subject
property, claiming contributions to its construction and maintenance.
However, this assertion lacks evidentiary support and remains
unsubstantiated. Despite his claim, no suit for declaration of ownership has
been filed by Petitioner No. 4, nor has he presented any credible
documentation to counter Ms. Amna Begum’s ownership. The District
Magistrate, after thoroughly examining the evidence, rejected his assertions
and affirmed Respondent No. 1’s ownership. The absence of any legal
challenge to these findings reinforces the conclusion that Petitioner No. 4’s
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
claim is devoid of merit.
21. It is also significant to note that the domestic violence proceedings
initiated by Ms. Tabassum resulted in a protection order against Ms.
Shabana. However, in the said proceedings, Ms. Amna Begum was not a
party. Furthermore, in a civil suit [C.S. No. 569/2021] filed by Ms.
Tabassum challenging the disconnection of electricity, no prima facie case
was established and the suit was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. These
facts indicate that the disputes are primarily conflicts among family
members, particularly between Ms. Tabassum and Ms. Shabana, rather than
substantive claims affecting the ownership over the subject property.
22. The necessity of safeguarding a senior citizen’s right to live with
dignity and security in their own property needs no emphasis. The
allegations of ill-treatment, financial exploitation and mental harassment
made by Respondent No. 1 were proved before the District Magistrate. The
complaints and evidence presented on record demonstrate a sustained
pattern of hostility, creating a deeply distressing and insecure environment
for the senior citizen. The evident breakdown of familial relationships makes
it imperative for Respondent No. 1 to seek eviction as a necessary step to
restore her peace and dignity in her own home. Undoubtedly, the DV Act
offers protections to women, however, these must be weighed against the
rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act. In this case, the
absence of any allegations of domestic violence against Respondent No. 1,
along with her established ownership of the property, shifts the balance
decisively in favour of enforcing her rights. There is no material on record to
justify interference by this Court. Permitting the Petitioners to remain in
occupation of the property against the wishes of its lawful owner would
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08
create an untenable situation, defeating the very purpose of the Senior
Citizens Act.
23. In light of the above, the petition is dismissed and the Respondents
shall be at liberty to enforce the order passed by the District Magistrate, in
accordance with law.
24. Disposed of along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 07, 2025
as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5068/2022 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:07.01.2025
16:05:08