Senior Citizens’ proprietary rights prevail over daughter-in-law’s residence rights upon provision of adequate alternate accommodation.

The Petitioner (daughter-in-law) challenged an eviction order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal (19.05.2025) and upheld by the Appellate Authority, which directed her to vacate the property of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (senior citizen in-laws).

The Respondents filed for eviction under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, alleging physical and verbal ill-treatment by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner contended that the property was her matrimonial home and that she has a minor child with 50% permanent disability (Autism Spectrum Disorder) whose medical and educational needs are tied to the current residence.

Conversely, the Respondents argued they had already purchased an independent house in Gurugram for the Petitioner and that she rarely stayed at the suit property.

The court primarily applied Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which entitles a senior citizen to seek eviction on grounds of non-maintenance or ill-treatment.

It relied extensively on the Supreme Court precedent in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, which mandates a balancing act between a woman’s right to a "shared household" under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the protections for senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The court also noted Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act regarding maintenance and the summary nature of Tribunal proceedings under Section 8.

The court found that the property was the self-acquired asset of Respondent No. 3 and that factual findings of "ill-treatment" had been established by the lower authorities, which the Petitioner failed to successfully rebut during the appeal.

Applying the S. Vanitha principle, the court reasoned that while the Petitioner has a right to residence, it is not an absolute right to insist on a specific property belonging to the in-laws, especially when the relationship has turned acrimonious.

Regarding the disabled child, the court held that while medical stability is crucial, the primary obligation to provide accommodation rests with the parents, not the grandparents.

To balance the competing interests, the court determined that the senior citizens’ right to peaceful enjoyment could be preserved by requiring them to provide financial assistance for alternative accommodation, thereby ensuring the Petitioner and child are not rendered homeless.

The Court ordered: (i) the Respondents to pay ₹30,000 as rent and ₹5,000 as maintenance (total ₹35,000/month) to the Petitioner [para. 18]; (ii) six months of rent to be deposited in advance within one month [para. 19]; (iii) the Petitioner to vacate within 60 days of receiving the advance [para. 20]; and (iv) restricted the Respondents from creating third-party interests in the property without court permission [para. 23].