Daughter-in-law's right to shared household prevails over eviction under Senior Citizens Act in collusive proceedings.

The petitioner, a senior citizen and owner of house No. B-36A, North Chajjupur, Delhi, sought the eviction of her son (Respondent No. 2) and daughter-in-law (Respondent No. 1) under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

The petitioner alleged physical and mental harassment.

The District Magistrate initially ordered eviction, but the Appellate Authority set aside the order specifically against the daughter-in-law (Respondent No. 1), finding the eviction application to be "collusive" between the mother and son to oust the daughter-in-law amidst matrimonial discord.

The petitioner challenged this reversal via a writ petition, claiming a right to enjoy her property without harassment.

1. Whether the right of a senior citizen to evict occupiers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can override a woman's right to reside in a "shared household" under the DV Act.

2. Whether the findings of collusion and lack of ill-treatment by the daughter-in-law warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), which guarantees a woman’s right to reside in her shared household regardless of legal title.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, establishing that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the DV Act must be harmoniously construed, and the former cannot be used to summarily defeat the latter.

Additionally, it applied the principle from Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj regarding the limited supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 to interfere with findings of fact.

The court observed that Respondent No. 1 had lived in the property for over two decades as her matrimonial home.

It upheld the Appellate Authority’s finding that the eviction suit was collusive, noting that despite an eviction order against him, the son (Respondent No. 2) continued to occupy the ground floor with the petitioner’s tolerance.

The court reasoned that since there was no evidence of ill-treatment by the daughter-in-law, her eviction would be an abuse of the Senior Citizens Act to settle matrimonial scores.

Balancing equities, the court determined that the daughter-in-law’s right to shelter for herself and her minor children outweighed the petitioner’s claim for exclusive possession in the context of proved collusion.

The court ordered Respondent No. 2 (the son) to vacate the property within 30 days. It directed a physical separation of residence: the petitioner shall occupy the entire ground floor, and Respondent No. 1 (daughter-in-law) shall occupy the first floor.