Delhi HC Sets Aside Senior Citizens Act Eviction Order Against Co-Sharer Son Living 100 Metres From Parents

The petitioner, the eldest son of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was in possession of property bearing H. No. C-167/A/1.

His father had earlier sued him for mandatory and permanent injunction concerning parts of that property; the suit was dismissed after the civil court found that the father had not proved sole ownership and that the petitioner had been residing there since 2003 as a co-sharer.

The parents subsequently sought eviction of the petitioner and his two brothers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging ill-treatment.

The District Magistrate directed the sons to vacate, and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that he was a co-sharer and that his property was approximately 100 metres from the parents’ residence; the parents maintained that the property belonged to the father and that the petitioner had harassed them.

1. Whether the eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could be sustained against the petitioner in respect of a property in which the civil court had recorded him as a co-sharer and the father as not the sole owner or licensor.

2. Whether eviction was necessary and expedient to protect or maintain the parents where the petitioner’s property was not contiguous to their residence and was approximately 100 metres away.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 empowers the Tribunal to order eviction where necessary to secure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parent.

As explained by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730, eviction is a remedy to be used only when necessary and expedient for that purpose, after considering the competing claims in the dispute.

A prior civil judgment that does not conclusively determine title may nevertheless be relevant to the competing claims where it records that the occupant is a co-sharer and that the claimant is not the sole owner or licensor.

The Court held that the father’s assertion of sole ownership was inconsistent with the civil judgment, which recorded that he had failed to establish sole ownership and that the petitioner had occupied the property since 2003 as a co-sharer.

Although that judgment did not conclusively determine title, it was relevant to assessing the parties’ competing claims.

The site plan also showed that the petitioner’s property was approximately 100 metres from the parents’ residence and was not contiguous to it.

Applying S. Vanitha, the Court concluded that the eviction order against the petitioner could not be sustained on this record.

It clarified that its observations and decision were confined to the petitioner and the subject property and did not extend to the portions occupied by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.