Senior citizens may evict daughters-in-law by providing alternate accommodation or rent to balance competing statutory rights.

The Petitioner, a senior citizen and absolute owner of the subject property in Krishna Nagar, Delhi, sought the eviction of her daughter-in-law (Respondent No. 1) due to strained relations and matrimonial disputes between the Respondents

Respondent No. 1 had previously obtained a protection order from a Mahila Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), restraining her dispossession

The Petitioner’s initial application for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) was dismissed by the District Magistrate citing the subsisting protection order

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner directed that the Petitioner could occupy the property but must provide Respondent No. 1 with either alternate accommodation from her other properties or reasonable monthly rent

The Petitioner challenged this order, asserting she owned no other property

Whether a senior citizen’s right to seek eviction under the 2007 Act can be exercised in a manner that defeats the statutory residential rights of a daughter-in-law under the DV Act

Whether a specific finding of ill-treatment is a mandatory prerequisite for a senior citizen to seek protection and eviction under the 2007 Act

Whether the direction to provide alternate accommodation from the Petitioner’s own property portfolio was sustainable given the Petitioner’s claim of owning only the subject property

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Supreme Court precedent in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, which established that while the 2007 Act provides a speedy remedy, it cannot nullify the protections of the DV Act; instead, courts must balance competing claims through "moulded relief"

Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha regarding the provision of alternate accommodation

Santosh Tyagi v. GNCTD, which clarified that a finding of ill-treatment is not strictly necessary to protect the rights of senior citizens under the 2007 Act

The Court reasoned that in disputes involving the competing statutory rights of a senior citizen (proprietary) and a daughter-in-law (residential), the judiciary must achieve a balance that safeguards both parties

It observed that the Petitioner, as a senior citizen, is entitled to seek eviction from her self-acquired property, but Respondent No. 1’s right to a "shared household" necessitates the provision of alternate arrangements

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s categorical assertion of owning no other property was uncontroverted

Consequently, forcing the Petitioner to offer a non-existent second property was unfeasible

Therefore, the Court determined that the only practical method to balance the rights was to mandate the payment of reasonable rent (₹15,000/month) to enable the daughter-in-law to secure alternate housing, thereby allowing the senior citizen to regain possession of her sole property

It held that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to alternate accommodation, but since the Petitioner owns no other property, this right shall be satisfied via rental payment

The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to vacate the subject property within two months

the Petitioner was ordered to pay Respondent No. 1 a monthly rent of ₹15,000 starting from the date of vacation to facilitate her relocation