Title to Property and Senior Citizens’ Right to Peace prevails over Claims of Shared Household and Ancestral Rights

The Petitioners (daughter-in-law and grandson) challenged an eviction order passed by the Divisional Commissioner

Following the death of Petitioner No. 1’s husband in 2020, disputes arose over the "Subject Property" owned by Respondent No. 2 (father-in-law)

The Respondents filed for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, alleging ill-treatment

While the Maintenance Tribunal initially ordered only partial eviction from the ground floor, the Divisional Commissioner, in the Impugned Common Order dated 28.08.2023, directed the Petitioners to vacate the entire property due to the untenable acrimonious relationship

The Petitioners claimed a right to "shared household" and alleged the property was ancestral

The court applied the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Delhi Rules, 2009, which provide a summary procedure for the protection of senior citizens' life and property

It relied on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, establishing that while the Domestic Violence Act protections for a "shared household" (Section 2(s)) must be balanced, they do not automatically override the Senior Citizens Act

based on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, a daughter-in-law's right of residence is protective, not proprietary, and may be balanced by providing alternate accommodation

The principle was affirmed that authorities under this Act cannot determine complex civil disputes regarding inheritance or ownership

The court found that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the recorded owners of the property, and the relationship between the parties has become severely hostile, characterized by police complaints and litigation

The Court reasoned that Petitioner No. 1 is not a destitute individual but a gainfully employed Government teacher, and therefore, her claim to reside in the specific "shared household" is not absolute

The Court observed that the core of the Petitioners' argument involved complex civil claims regarding ancestral business and LIC policies—matters that fall outside the summary jurisdiction of the Senior Citizens Act and must be tried in civil court

Crucially, the Respondents offered alternate accommodation (Khirki Extension and Faridabad plots), satisfying the requirement to balance the daughter-in-law’s residence rights with the senior citizens' right to a peaceful life

The Court directed: (1) Respondents to deposit ownership papers of the alternate Khirki Extension and Faridabad properties with the Divisional Commissioner within 30 days; (2) Petitioners to vacate the Subject Property within 45 days thereafter; and (3) Neither party shall create third-party rights in the properties without court permission