Delhi High Court
Smt. Renu vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 12 March, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18th December, 2025
Pronounced on: 12th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 13357/2019 & CM APPL. 54368/2019, 26671/2023,
25567/2025
SMT. RENU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Roshan, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed seeking the following prayers:-
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the
impugned order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate
Court of Divisional Commissioner Office of the Pr. Secretary-Cum-
Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No. 27 of 2018 or in the
alternative.
b. In case the relief sought in the aforesaid para cannot be granted to
the Petitioner, it is accordingly prayed that the Respondents No. 2 be
directed to provide alternate residence to the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 1 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
c. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the present writ petition as pleaded are
as follows:-
a) On 21.04.2006, the petitioner/ daughter-in-law and her husband got
married as per Christian rites and customs, and from the said wedlock two
daughters were born.
b) It is alleged that since the inception of the said marriage, the petitioner
had been subjected to immense cruelty at the instance of her husband and
respondent no. 2/ mother-in-law. It is further alleged that she was ousted from
her matrimonial home/ shared household/ subject property on several
occasions. Being constrained, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against
her husband and the respondent no. 2.
c) It is further alleged that the petitioner’s husband had shown porn clips to
his minor daughter and he had threatened to kill her and the petitioner, if she
revealed such acts to the petitioner. Subsequently, the minor daughter
disclosed the said act to the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file
FIR bearing no. 0736/2015 against her husband on 05.10.2015 under Section
354A read with Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Subsequently, the
petitioner’s husband was arrested and later, released on bail on 09.11.2015.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 2 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
d) It is further alleged that the petitioner’s husband with a malafide intent,
colluded with the respondent no. 2 and executed a General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Will, all dated 19.11.2015, with respect to
property bearing Plot no. 5, Third Floor, Asola Extn., New Delhi, 110074,
Khasra no. 789 & 790, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. (for short “subject property”),
in favour of the respondent no. 2 to frustrate the rights of the petitioner
conferred under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short “DV Act“).
e) It is the case of the petitioner that she and her minor daughters were
subjected to utmost cruelty/ humiliation and since, they were even under the
threat of being thrown out of the said property, the petitioner filed a complaint
bearing no. 145/1 on 11.12.2015 under section 12 of the DV Act against her
husband and the respondent no. 2, praying for protection from being ejected
from the subject property by the respondent no. 2.
f) Vide legal notice dated 19.12.2015, respondent no. 2 called upon the
petitioner to vacate the subject property, as on account of non-repayment of
loan of Rs. 9,40,000, the petitioner’s husband sold the subject property to the
respondent no. 2.
g) On 24.05.2016, respondent no. 2 filed a writ petition bearing no.
6348/2016 before this Court seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject
property.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 3 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
h) Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 15.11.2016 in CC no.
145/1 passed a protection order in favour of the petitioner, protecting her from
being evicted from the subject property.
i) Vide order dated 24.08.2017, this Court dismissed the W.P.(C)
6348/2016 observing that there was no infirmity in the action of police
authority in closing the complaint of respondent no. 2 on the ground that
dispute was essentially civil in nature. It was further observed that in view of
the stand taken, it would be open to the respondent no. 2 to approach the
Maintenance Tribunal under the said Act.
j) On 06.09.2017, respondent no. 2 filed an application bearing no. 13/17
in the Court of Senior Citizen Tribunal, South under Section 3(1)(i) of the
Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016
for eviction of the petitioner from the subject property on account of ill-
treatment.
k) Subsequently, a procedural inquiry was conducted by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and its inquiry report dated 19.02.2018, it was noted
that the grounds stated by the respondent no. 2 are not substantial enough to
evict the petitioner from the subject property and the respondent no. 2 did not
produce any evidence for ill-treatment/ abuse to her by the petitioner. Further,
District Magistrate, South, Saket, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.03.2018
dismissed the case no. 13/17 filed by the respondent no. 2 on the ground that
as per the inquiry report dated 19.02.2018, alleged ill-treatment has not been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 4 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
proved against the petitioner. However, District Magistrate advised the parties
to reside amicably in the said property.
l) On 10.04.2018, aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2018, respondent
no. 2 filled an appeal bearing no. 27/2018 in Court of Divisional
Commissioner under Rule 22(3)(4) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 read with Act of 2007.
m) Vide order 18.11.2019, Divisional Commissioner allowed the said
appeal and directed the petitioner to vacate the subject property within 30
days from the date of issuance of the said order, so as to enable the respondent
no. 2 to live peacefully as is the mandate of Act of 2007.
n) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2019 (for short “impugned
order”), present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. The dispute in the present case is between the petitioner and the
respondent no. 2, who are daughter-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.
Initially, respondent no. 2 had filed an application under Section 3(1)(i) of the
Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016,
seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she is the sole owner of
the subject property. However, the same was rejected by the District
Magistrate, South, Saket, New Delhi, vide order dated 05.03.2018. Against
the said order, an appeal no. 27/2018 was preferred by respondent no. 2,
wherein, the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 was passed by the Appellate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 5 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
Court of Divisional Commissioner/ Office of the Pr. Secretary-cum-
Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of
Delhi. Vide impugned order dated 18.11.2019, appeal filed by the respondent
no. 2 was allowed and order dated 05.03.2018 was set-aside and it was
ordered that the petitioner be evicted from the subject property within 30 days
from the date of issuance of the said order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 had
initiated the proceedings under the Act of 2007 and Rules made in the State of
NCT of Delhi under the said Act to oust the petitioner and to circumvent/
avert the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate
granting interim protection of residence to the petitioner with respect to the
subject property. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District & Ors.1, and it is contended that the right of a woman to secure a
residence order with respect to a shared household cannot be defeated by
securing an eviction order under the Act of 2007. It is further submitted that
the facts in the case of S. Vanitha (supra) were similar to the facts in the
present case.
5. It is further submitted that the prerequisite for initiating proceedings
under the Act of 2007 is that the elderly must lack sufficient resources to
support themselves, thus depending on their legal heirs for assistance. The
1
2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 6 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
intention of the said Act is not to give a weapon in the hand of a senior citizen
to be used for evicting their children/ daughter-in-law as in the present case.
6. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has taken recourse of
Section 23 of the Act of 2007 to prove that the subject property was not
transferred to her by the husband of the petitioner (her son) with any
malicious intention as the said property was acquired in the name of her son
with the expectation that he would look after the needs of her and as he could
not take care of her anymore, the subject property was transferred to the
respondent no. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 has been
consistently changing her pleas regarding the ownership and transfer of the
subject property. It is pointed out that in her legal notice dated 19.12.2015, it
was asserted by the respondent no. 2 that her son had sold the subject property
to her, as he failed to repay loan of Rs. 9,40,000/- given by her. However,
subsequently, she changed her stand and claimed that she had purchased the
subject property in her son’s name with an understanding that he would cater
to her basic needs and support her and as he could not fulfil his obligations,
property was transferred to her.
7. It is submitted that the sequence of events suggests malicious intent of
respondent no. 2 and that the proceedings initiated by her were solely aimed
at evicting the petitioner from the subject property. It is the case of the
petitioner that her husband/ respondent no. 2’s son had executed the General
Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will, all dated 19.11.2015, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 7 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
favour of his mother/ respondent no. 2 only after the matrimonial disputes had
arisen between them.
8. It is submitted that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj lamp & Industries (P) v.
State of Haryana & Anr.2 that “contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is
not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the
requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title
nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right
granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an
agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a
conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property
can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does
not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.”
9. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 2
has used the provisions of the Act of 2007 to evict the petitioner, and, even if,
the case of respondent no. 2 with respect to maintenance is accepted to be
true, the same does not apply to the present case as the ingredients of Section
23(1) of the Act of 2007 are not fulfilled. It is the case of the petitioner that
respondent no. 2 has been unable to establish the conditions and explain the
circumstances under which her son had transferred the subject property in her
name and how he was unable to look her after or maintain her. Reliance has
been placed on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara
2
(2012) 1 SCC 656
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 8 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
v. Ramti Devi & Anr.3, to contend that when it is alleged that conditions
mentioned in Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 are attached to a transfer, the
existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.
Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and
basic physical needs to the transferor/ senior citizen is sine qua non for
applicability of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 had
sought eviction of the petitioner from the subject property on the sole ground
that she is the owner of the said property and the petitioner does not allow her
to enter into the said property. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 does not
reside in the said property, as has been claimed by her and the same is evident
from the fact that address of respondent no. 2 on various documents is not that
of the subject property but of her own flat in Kalkaji, Delhi, and same has not
been refuted by her. It is further submitted that inquiry report of the SDM,
Saket, dated 19.02.2018 also concludes that the petitioner should not be
evicted from the subject property on the ground that respondent no. 2 does not
reside in the subject property.
11. It is submitted that, in the present case, respondent no. 2 has not been
able to establish as to how her son has not been able to take care of her and
fulfil her basic needs. Further, respondent no. 2 does not have any grievance
against her son to the said extent and she had not impleaded her son as
necessary party in any of the proceedings initiated by or on her behalf. As per
3
Civil Appeal Number 174 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 9 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
the petitioner, this shows that the subject proceedings have been initiated by
respondent no. 2 while acting in collusion and connivance with her son solely
with the aim to eject the petitioner from the subject property and the same has
nothing to do with respondent no. 2’s son being unable to maintain her.
12. It is submitted that the impugned order is in derogation of the
guidelines passed by this Court vide Judgment dated 29.11.2019 titled as
Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Anr.4 wherein this Court held that if
the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful and the parents
are seen colluding with the son, then an obligation to provide shelter to the
daughter-in-law remain on the in-laws and an alternate accommodation would
have to be provided by them to the daughter-in-law.
13. It is further submitted that the impugned order is also in derogation of
the law passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Major Harmohinder
Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.5 wherein the Court held that even a potent
and protective legislation like the DV Act will be rendered effete, if it were to
be wrongly assumed that a father/ mother can throw out his/ her daughter-in-
law and that the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the DV Act cannot be used
for cross purposes, one annihilating the other. It also submitted that in the said
Judgment it was also held that a parent who invokes the provisions of the Act
of 2007 cannot create a situation that makes the right of a female under the
DV Act irrelevant.
4
CM(M) 1582/2018
5
LPA no. 1588/2014, dated 14.10.2014
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 10 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent no. 2 in
her legal notice dated 19.12.2015 has stated that she had given a loan of Rs.
9,40,000 to her son and on account of non-repayment of the same, her son
sold the subject property to respondent no. 2, pursuant to which the petitioner
was required to handover possession of the subject property to the respondent
no. 2. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2’s own
stand demonstrate that the present dispute does not fall within the ambit of the
Act of 2007 read with its Rules but is rather a case of alleged recovery of loan
and not one of eviction. Consequently, the provisions of the Act of 2007
cannot be invoked to evict the petitioner/ daughter-in-law as the statutory
requirement mandated under the said Act has not been fulfilled. Further,
reliance has been placed upon the Judgment of Bombay High Court dated
08.12.2025 in Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Appellate
Tribunal6 to contend that no eviction order can be passed under the Act of
2007 until the statutory requirement in being fulfilled.
15. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the application bearing
no. 13/17, respondent no. 2 did not make out any case with respect to a claim
for maintenance. In fact, the application itself reflects that the dispute is
purely a family dispute. Further, the SDM, in its inquiry report had also
observed that the issue between the parties is a family dispute and that no case
for maintenance or ill-treatment has been made out. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the District Magistrate, South had rightly dismissed the said
application, holding that the dispute between the parties pertains to a family
6
W.P. (C) 31614/2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 11 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
dispute and not of ill-treatment or non-maintenance. However, it is the case of
the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order, without
considering the fact that no case of ill-treatment or claim for maintenance was
made out, erroneously directed the petitioner to vacate the property in
question. Further, reliance is again placed on the Jitendra Gorakh (supra)
Judgment to contend that an eviction order under the Act of 2007 cannot be
passed in the absence of any claim for maintenance by the senior citizen. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner directing the petitioner to vacate the subject
property be set aside. Further, in alternative, it is prayed that respondent no. 2
be directed to provide alternate residence to the petitioner.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the latter
was working in Ahuja Radio, 215 – Okhla Industrial Area Phase-3, New
Delhi-110020 as a wireman in electronics department and had bought her first
property, i.e., 151, Subhash Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi, in 1973,
with the help of her employer company before her marriage and had paid all
installments with her own money. It is further submitted that petitioner and
her son’s marriage was solemnized and respondent no. 2 sold her old house
and offered the receipts of the sale to her son, so that they could buy Plot No.
5, IIIrd Floor, Khasra No.789-790, Asola Extension, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-
110074, (the subject property).
17. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that the subject property was bought in
the name of her son with the expectation that he would look after her for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 12 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
rest of her life, and the purchase of the said property was, in effect, a gift by
respondent no. 2 to her son, and for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act of
2007 the same should be considered as a self-acquired property. It is further
submitted that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 2
with respect to the possession of the subject property and the relationship
between both of them is not cordial and various complaints have also been
filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner for physically abusing her. It is
further the case of respondent no. 2 that she did not collude with her son to
execute the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will, all dated
19.11.2015 in her favour.
18. It has been argued on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the subject
property was bought from the sale receipts of old house, which was a self-
acquired property of respondent no. 2 and the same has also been admitted by
the petitioner herself in her cross-examination conducted on 18.12.2018 in
C.C. no. 145/1/15 titled as ‘Renu v. Arun Kumar‘.
19. It is further submitted that during matrimony, it was discovered that the
petitioner was maintaining illicit relationships with multiple men and she had
left her matrimonial home on 29.07.2014 to marry a man-‘R’, who later on
refused to marry her.
20. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that after the family shifted into the
subject property, the petitioner compelled her to leave the said property by
taunting and making threats to get her beaten up by her brother. Thus, in order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 13 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
to lead a peaceful life, respondent no. 2 left the subject property in June 2015.
However, when on 29.09.2015, respondent no. 2 returned to the subject
property, the petitioner refused to let her in and when she went away after
locking the door, respondent no. 2 broke open the door with the assistance of
Police. It is further the case of respondent no. 2 that thereafter she was badly
beaten up by the brother of the petitioner and was threatened to falsely being
implicated in a case, if she did not leave the subject property.
21. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that in such
circumstances, she was forced to file a police complaint on 02.10.2015.
However, as a counter blast to the said police complaint, petitioner lodged a
false complaint against respondent no. 2’s son alleging that he had shown
pornographic content to their minor daughter and subsequently, her son was
arrested in the said FIR lodged by the petitioner.
22. It is submitted that after release of respondent no. 2’s son on bail on
16.11.2015, respondent no. 2 got the subject property transferred back into
her name vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will, all
dated 19.11.2015, as the same was initially bought through respondent no. 2’s
fund on the condition that petitioner’s husband will take care of her in her
own age. However, the same was not possible on account of the fact that the
petitioner was unwilling to let respondent no. 2 enter into the subject property.
In view of the same, respondent no. 2 sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2015 to
the petitioner for vacating the subject property and handing over of
respondent no. 2’s articles which were in her possession.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 14 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
23. It is further submitted that since the petitioner did not reply to the said
legal notice, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint dated 28.01.2016 before the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to get her house/ subject property vacated
under the provisions of the Act of 2007 and to take strong action against the
petitioner, her brother and her mother. However, the police took no action in
response to her complaint.
24. It is further the case of respondent no. 2 that she is a senior citizen and
has been mistreated by the petitioner, as the latter has not been allowing her to
stay in the subject property which is owned by her. It is therefore prayed that
the impugned order does not require any interference as the same has been
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, after taking into consideration
overall facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 placed reliance on the
Judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Division Bench of this
Court in Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora7 in support of her case.
26. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
27. On an application bearing no. 13/17 filed by the respondent no. 2, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate had conducted an procedural inquiry and filed its
inquiry report dated 19.02.2018, wherein it was recorded as under:
7
RFA (OS) 64/2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 15 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
“4. On 24/10/2017 vide dy. No. 48743 a submission from Smt. Violet
Dass (complainant) alleged that she is residing at 3rd Floor, Plot no. 5, Kh.
No. 789 & 790, Asola Extension from December 2015 when the building
was not property constructed. She also submitted that her daughter in law
Smt. Renu (Respondent) was not residing here from the beginning. She
has submitted that she has purchased this flat by selling her flat at flat no.
151, Giri Nagar, Govindpuri, Subhash Khand, Kalkaji. She further
submitted that the submission by the Respondent Smt. Renu that she
(complainant) is not staying with Smt. Renu is completed wrong. For this
she has referred on complaint filed in 11 December 2015 by Smt. Renu in
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She has alleged that on 28/11/2015, when
she reached at flat of brother of Smt. Renu (Respondent) for taking key of
her flat at Plot no. 5, Kh. No. 789 & 790, Asola Extension, she was beaten
by verbally assaulted by Smt. Renu, her brother and sister in law.
5. After hearing both the parties, the area Halqua Patwari was directed to
conduct local inquiry and submit detailed visit report. In a report
submitted by Halqua Patwari he has submitted that he has visited the said
property bearing No. 789 and 790 Asola Extension, New Delhi, which
was on third floor in the said building. In local enquiry it came forwarded
that Smt. Renu was staying in flat no. 151, Giri Nagar, Govindpuri,
Subhash Khand, Kalkaji alongwith her family including Smt. Violet Dass
(complainant), Smt. Violet Dass (complainant) sold out the said flat no.
151, Giri Nagar, Govindpuri, Subhash Khand Kalkaji and distributed
money within all the children. Sh. Arun (Husband of Smt. Renu and Son
of Smt. Violet Dass) has purchased the flat at Plot no.5, Kh. No. 789 &
790, Asola Extension, New Delhi. The complainant does not stay at this
premises. At present Smt. Renu is staying with her 06 years old daughter.
CONCLUSION:
After detailed inquiry in this matter by the undersigned and after
considering the report of Halqa Patwari, it is found that:
1. Ownership:- A Notorized General Power of Attorney of 2015 was
submitted by Smt. Violet Dass of the property bearing no. Plot no. 5, Lh.
No. 789 & 790, Asola Extension, New Delhi.
2. In the inquiry it is appeared that this is matter of family dispute and
conflict between mother in law (Smt. Violet Dass), daughter in law (Smt.
Renu) and son (Sh. Arun Kumar). There is no issued related to
maintenance between both the parties as applicant Smt. Violet Dass has
not claimed any maintenance from the respondent Smt. Renu.
3. The complainant has submitted one document of the complaint under
section12 of the protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 16 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
dated 11/12/2015 before the Hon’ble Court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Saket Court. As per this document Smt. Renu has shown her
address at H.No.15, Subhash Khand, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 and 3rd
Floor, Sant Ram Plot C/o Joginder Kahari, Asola Extn. Fatehpur Beri,
New Delhi-110074 and the address of complainant Smt. Violet Dass is
mentioned as H. No. 78 & 151, Subhash Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New
Delhi-110019.
4. Further, as per submission of both the parties, a divorce case was filed
by Sh. Arun Kumar in the civil court which is pending.
5. In view of the above, it appears that there is family dispute between
husband (Sh. Arun Kumar) and wife (Smt. Renu). There is dispute
between the complainant (Smt. Violet Dass) and the respondent (Smt.
Renu) over the possession of property at flat Plot no. 5, Kh. No. 789 &
790, Asola Extension. No evidences were produced by the complainant
for ill-treatment / abuse to her by the respondent Smt. Renu. One
incidence dated 28/11/2015 was referred by the complainant, which is
incident of quarrel between them over key of the flat no. 5, Kh. No. 789 &
790, Asola Extension, New Delhi.
6. Therefore, I of the opinion that the grounds by the complainant are not
substantial enough to evict the respondent from property bearing no. Plot
no. 5, Kh. No. 789 & 790, Asola Extension as the complainant failed to
produce evidences for ill-treatment and abuse by the respondent. ”
28. Subsequently, District Magistrate (South) vide order dated 05.03.2018
dismissed the application no. 13/17 and held as under:
” This order shall dispose of the application filed by Mrs. Violet
Dass, W/o. Late Sh. Shri Charles Morris, resident Plot No.5, Kh.789 &
790, Asola Extn., Chhatarpur, New Delhi-74, (presently residing at 62,
Tilak Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi) against Smt. Renu,
daughter-in-law, W/o. Arun Kumar, resident of Plot No.5, IIIrd Floor,Kh.
No. 789 & 790, Asola Extn., Chhattarpur, New Delhi, for seeking
eviction under the provisions of the Maintenance of and Welfare of
Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with rule 22(2) the Delhi,
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and
Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules,
2016.
Notices were issued to the petitioner and respondent on 13.09.2017
to appear before the undersigned on 20.09.2017. Both the parties
appeared before the undersigned on the date of hearing. The Petitioner hasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 17 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
submitted that she has been forcefully made homeless by her daughter-in-
law, Smt.Renu. It Is also mentioned that a divorce case was filed by
Sh.Arun Kumar, Son of the Petitioner, in the civil court which is pending.
Therefore, Petitioner has requested to evict the Respondent from the said
property for peaceful possession of the same.
After considering the above, the Court has directed the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Saket) to submit factual inquiry report after
conducting a thorough inquiry in the matter. Sh. Ramchandra M. Shingare
vide report dated 19.02.2018 has submitted that both the parties were
heard and a local enquiry was conducted through Halqa Patwari. SDM in
his report has submitted the following:
1. That Smt. Renu denied all the allegations leveled by the
Petitioner against her and added that the Petitioner, mother-in-law of the
Respondent, is not residing with her at the above mentioned address
2. That vide written representation the Petitioner mentioned that
she is residing at 3″ Floor, Plot No.5, Kh No. 789 8. 790, Asola Extn,
from Dec., 2015 when the building was not property constructed. She
alleged that the Respondent was not residing here from the beginning.
Petitioner also submitted that she has purchased this flat by selling her flat
No, 151, Giri Nagar, Govindpuri, Subhash Khand. Kalkaji. Petitioner also
informed that one complaint was filed on 11,12,2015 against her by the
Respondent under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
SDM (Saket) concluded his report with the observation that this is
a matter of mutual family dispute between mother-in-law and daughter-
in-law & son. There is no issue related to maintenance between both the
parties. It is also mentioned that a divorce case was filed by Sh, Arun
Kumar, Son of the Petitioner, against the Respondent in the civil court
which is pending. It Is also submitted in the report that no evidences were
produced by the Petitioner for ill-treatment/abuse to her by the
Respondent.
Several hearings were held in the instant matter and finally heard
on 05.03.2018. On the date of final heating, petitioner has reiterated her
grounds, as already elucidated in the application and requested to evict the
Respondent immediately for peaceful possession of her property. On the
other hand, Respondent denied all the allegations made by the Petitioner.
Under the Senior Citizen Act, District Magistrate is empowered to
evict the son and daughter or legal heir from the self acquired property of
a senior citizen on account of his non-maintenance / ill-treatment. After
going through the Inquiry Report submitted by the SDM (Saket) and
submissions made by the parties before the undersigned on various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 18 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
hearings and finally on 05.03.2018, I am fully convinced with the opinion
of the SDM (Saket) that this is a matter of mutual family dispute and
conflict between mother-in-law, son & daughter-in-law. Accordingly, I
am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner and Respondent should
restrain themselves from involving in complaints on each other which
may further disrupt their family life.
Since nothing has been proved against the alleged ill- treatment
against the Petitioner, as per the inquiry report submitted by Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Saket), which is very crucial to act against the
Respondent in the present matter, both the parties are advised to lead a
peaceful life amicably in their mutual interest. I am inclined to give an
opportunity to both the parties, on humanitarian grounds, to live
peacefully in the said property, and refrain themselves from fighting and
abusing each other.
Accordingly, the application of the Petitioner is rejected.”
29. However, the aforesaid order dated 05.03.2018 was set aside by the
Divisional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 18.11.2019 and the
operative part of the said order reads as under:
“23. Thus, the argument of District Magistrate (South) that there is no
maintenance issue is the instant case would not hold. In light of above
cited judgments, the ill-treatment of a senior citizen alone is a sufficient
ground for eviction. As discussed above, the title of the property is not
disputed and is in favour of the appellant. SDM report stated that there is
dispute between the appellant and the respondent over the possession of
property. There are police complaints on record filed by the appellant.
The relationship between the appellant and respondent is not cordial and
is strained. Even after DM’s order giving opportunity to both parties to
live peacefully in the said property, as stated by the appellant during
hearing, she was not allowed by respondent to stay in her property. The
respondent despite opportunity didn’t appeal before this court. Not
allowing the appellant to stay in her own property itself amounts to ill
treatment. As per the provisions of Senior Citizen Act and Rules, the
proceedings are of summary nature and without prejudice to the rights of
any party in subject property which may be determined by Civil Court in
accordance with law.
24. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior CitizenSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 19 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
Act and Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen
Rules, as amended time to time, and on careful consideration of the
material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice
would be met, if appeal is allowed and the order dated 05.03.2018,
passed by District Magistrate (South) is hereby set aside. It is further,
ordered that the respondent Smt. Renu, W/o Sh. Arun Kumar, be evicted
from the property bearing No. Plot No. 5, IIIrd Floor, Khasra No. 789-
790, Asola Extension, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110074, within 30 days
from the date of issue of this order so as to enable the appellant to live
peacefully as is the mandate of the Act. ”
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (supra) held as under:
“E. Harmonising competing reliefs under the PWDV Act, 2005 and
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
34. Section 36 [ “36. Act not in derogation of any other law.–
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation
of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.”] of the
PWDV Act, 2005 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law
for the time being in force. This is intended to ensure that the remedies
provided under the enactment are in addition to other remedies and do
not displace them. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 is undoubtedly a later Act and as we have noticed
earlier, Section 3 stipulates that its provisions will have effect,
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other
enactment. However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by
themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims
a right in a shared household, as under the PWDV Act, 2005.
Principles of statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two
special Acts containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall
typically prevail. [Solidaire (India) Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial
Services Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 71] In the present case, as we have seen,
the Senior Citizen’s Act, 2007 contains a non obstante clause.
However, in the event of a conflict between special Acts, the dominant
purpose of both statutes would have to be analysed to ascertain which
one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter
must be to harmonise, not excise. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, in
Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh [Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh, (2008)Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 20 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
8 SCC 148] , in examining a similar factual scenario, observed that :
(SCC p. 160, para 28)
“28. In the present case, both the two Acts i.e. the Act of 1992 and the
Act of 1993 start with the non obstante clause. Section 34 of the Act of
1993 starts with non obstante clause, likewise Section 9-A (sic 13) of
the Act of 1992. But incidentally, in this case Section 9-A came
subsequently i.e. it came on 25-1-1994. Therefore, it is a subsequent
legislation which will have the overriding effect over the Act of 1993.
But cases might arise where both the enactments have the non obstante
clause then in that case, the proper perspective would be that one has to
see the subject and the dominant purpose for which the special
enactment was made and in case the dominant purpose is covered by
that contingencies, then notwithstanding that the Act might have come
at a later point of time still the intention can be ascertained by looking
to the objects and reasons. However, so far as the present case is
concerned, it is more than clear that Section 9-A of the Act of 1992
was amended on 25-1-1994 whereas the Act of 1993 came in 1993.
Therefore, the Act of 1992 as amended to include Section 9-A in 1994
being subsequent legislation will prevail and not the provisions of the
Act of 1993.”
(emphasis supplied)
This principle of statutory interpretation was also affirmed by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.
v. Union of India [Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union
of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 1] .
35. In the present case, Section 36 of the PWDV Act, 2005,
albeit not in the nature of a non obstante clause, has to be construed
harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 that operates in a separate field.
36. In this case, both pieces of legislation are intended to deal
with salutary aspects of public welfare and interest. The PWDV Act,
2005 was intended to deal with the problems of domestic violence
which, as the Statements of Objects and Reasons sets out, “is widely
prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain”. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates that while Section 498-A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 21 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
of the Penal Code, 1860 created a penal offence out of a woman’s
subjection to cruelty by her husband or relative, the civil law did not
address its phenomenon in its entirety. Hence, consistent with the
provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Parliament
enacted a legislation which would “provide for a remedy under the
civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of
domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence
in the society”. The ambit of the Bill has been explained thus:
“4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for the following–
(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with
the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household
and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in
the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, relationships with
family members living together as a joint family are also included.
Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single women, or
living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the
proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or the
female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a
complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the
husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of
the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or
the female partner.
(ii) It defines the expression “domestic violence” to include actual
abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or
economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the
woman or her relatives would also be covered under this definition.
(iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also
provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or
shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such
home or household. This right is secured by a residence order, which is
passed by the Magistrate.
(iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in favour of
the aggrieved person to prevent the respondent from aiding or
committing an act of domestic violence or any other specified act,
entering a workplace or any other place frequented by the aggrieved
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 22 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
person, attempting to communicate with her, isolating any assets used
by both the parties and causing violence to the aggrieved person, her
relatives or others who provide her assistance from the domestic
violence.
(v) It provides for appointment of Protection Officers and registration
of non-governmental organisations as service providers for providing
assistance to the aggrieved person with respect to her medical
examination, obtaining legal aid, safe shelter, etc.”
37. The above extract indicates that a significant object of the
legislation is to provide for and recognise the rights of women to
secure housing and to recognise the right of a woman to reside in a
matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any
title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations,
irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a
shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act, 2005, would
defeat the object and purpose which Parliament sought to achieve in
enacting the latter legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior
citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the
mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV
Act, 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation.
Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the
right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared
household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing
an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
38. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive
remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted
under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary
procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the civil courts, under
Section 8. The jurisdiction of the civil courts has been explicitly barred
under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the
overriding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to
preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are
sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act, 2005. The PWDV Act,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 23 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with
the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the
form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society.
In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it
would be appropriate for a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under
Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that do not result in
obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as
the PWDV Act, 2005. Section 26 [ “26. Relief in other suits and legal
proceedings.–(1) Any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21
and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court,
family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the
respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the
commencement of this Act.(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1)
may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a
civil or criminal court.(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the
aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this
Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such
relief.”] of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief
for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal
proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is
alleged, such as in the present case where the suit premises are a
site of contestation between two groups protected by the law, it
would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after
noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the
PWDV Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 3 of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and
nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s
right to a “shared household” under Section 17 of the PWDV Act,
2005. In the event that the “aggrieved woman” obtains a relief from a
tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, she shall be
duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act, 2005, as
per sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act, 2005. This course
of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 and the PWDV Act, 2005, of ensuring speedy relief to its
protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is
effectively realised. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if
there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realisation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 24 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
39. Adverting to the factual situation at hand, on construing the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act,
2007, it is evident that it applies to a situation where a senior citizen
has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or
part thereof is transferred. On the other hand, the appellant’s simple
plea is that the suit premises constitute her “shared household” within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, 2005. We have also
seen the series of transactions which took place in respect of the
property : the spouse of the appellant purchased it in his own name a
few months before the marriage but subsequently sold it, after a few
years, under a registered sale deed at the same price to his father (the
father-in-law of the appellant), who in turn gifted it to his spouse i.e.
the mother-in-law of the appellant after divorce proceedings were
instituted by the fourth respondent. Parallel to this, the appellant had
instituted proceedings of dowry harassment against her mother-in-law
and her estranged spouse; and her spouse had instituted divorce
proceedings. The appellant had also filed proceedings for maintenance
against the fourth respondent and the divorce proceedings are pending.
It is subsequent to these events, that the second and third respondents
instituted an application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The fact
that specific proceedings under the PWDV Act, 2005 had not been
instituted when the application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
was filed, should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an
order of eviction deprives her from pursuing her claim of entitlement
under the law. The inability of a woman to access judicial remedies
may, as this case exemplifies, be a consequence of destitution,
ignorance or lack of resources. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the
view that recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was not available for the purpose of
facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the
appellant in respect of a shared household. A shared household
would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the
appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely
because the ownership of the property has been subsequently
transferred to her in-laws (second and third respondents) or that
her estranged spouse (fourth respondent) is now residing
separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection
that was envisaged under the PWDV Act, 2005.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 25 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
F. Summation
40. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that
the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared
household within the meaning of the PWDV Act, 2005 would have to
be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be
obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers
entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The second and third
respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under
Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for alteration of the
maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) held as
under:
” 13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by
executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near
and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not
necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers
are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return.
Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of
such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.
14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by
respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed
was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters
of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated
22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding
has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the
parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal,
immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition
was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of
providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-
section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not
even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed
subject to such a condition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 26 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
15. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by respondent
no.1. Even in the counter, it is not pleaded that the release was subject
to such a condition. It is merely pleaded that the appellant had no
intention to take care of her mother. Thus, the order of the
Maintenance Tribunal cannot be sustained as the twin conditions
incorporated in sub-Section (1) of Section 23 were not satisfied.
Unfortunately, the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the
case at all.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. The grounds taken by the respondent no. 2 in application no. 13/17 are
as follows:
“17. That in the above circumstances the applicant is filling this
application for eviction of the respondent on the following grounds:-
A. Because the respondent no. 2 has no right on the house of the
applicant because the house was purchased using the money of applicant
which she got by selling her property at Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi
and no any money of any other person either of family or outside the
family was used in purchasing the house.
B. Because the respondent No.2 with intention to grab the house
from the applicant and her son first compelled the applicant to go
applicant in a serious case so that he may not enter the house and the
respondent No.2 will get the sole occupation of the house.
C. Because the respondent no.2 is nymphomaniac lady and for the
fulfilment of her personal grudge she had compelled to the applicant and
the son of the applicant to leave the house so that she may do what she
wants without in hurdle and hindrance, occupying the house of the
applicant illegally.
D. Because the applicant is a Senior Citizen, Old & Sick lady and
suffering from Asthama and during this period she had got three time
serious attacks and if the house was not got vacated from the respondent
under provisions of the Section 3(1)(i) of Delhi Welfare and
Maintenance of Senior Citizen and Parents (Amendment) Act 2016, the
applicant will fact irreparable loss and injury which cannot be fulfilled in
any manner.
E. Because the applicant is the sole owner of the house on which her
daughter-in-law Renu the respondent No.2 is occupying on which thereSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 27 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
is no right of her as per Supreme Court direction in S.R. Batra & Ors. Vs.
Taruma Batra in Civil (Appeal) No. 5837 of 2006 and Vimalben Ajitbai
Patel Vs. Vatsalabeen shokbai Patel & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2003 of
2008 and similar Verdict has been passed by this Hon’ble Court also in
Crl. M.C. No. 3497/2008 in matter of Ekta Arora Vs. Ajay Arora & Anr
and CS (OS) No. 41/2005 in matter of Smt. Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs.
Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors and judgment of Punjab & Haryana
High Court in CWP No. 18009 of 2015 (O & M) Hamina Kang Vs.
District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh also in the judgment passed by
Hon’ble Justice Manmohan Singh in WP(Civil) No. 10463/2015 Sunny
Paul & Anr. Vs. State & Ors it is said that adult children can be evicted.
using her own articles and house which is bought by her due to the
atrocities of the respondent No.2 which is never allowing her to enter the
house and whenever the applicant had gone, the respondent No. 2 had
never allowed to enter her own house and thrown her out using abusive
languages. Thus eviction of respondent from the house will be judicious
in the interest of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. Before moving the said application, it is an admitted case that the
respondent no. 2 also got a legal notice dated 19.12.2015 issued against the
petitioner, which claimed as under:
“Under instruction and on behalf of my client Mrs Violet Dass D/o Mr.
Samuel dass R/O J.51, Subhash Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-
110019, serve upon you the following notice.
1. That my client has given loan for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- (Rs. Nine
Lacs, Forty Thousand Only) to her son Arun Kuma S/O Late Mr.
Charles Morris R/O Plot No. 5, 3rd Floor-C, Khasra No. 789 & 790,
Asola Extn., New Delhi-110074, but failed to repay the said loan to my
client as Mr. Arun Kumar failed to pay the loan amount so Arun
Kumar sold his flat i.e. Plot no. 5, 3rd Floor C, Khasra No. 789 &790,
Asola Extn., New Delhi to my client along with articles as per list
annexed as ANNEXURE-B.
2. That now my client have full right in the above noted Flat and articles
mentioned in ANNEXURE-B Plot no. 5, 3rd Floor C, Khasra No. 789 &
790, Asola Extn., New Delhi and Remaining articles as per list attached
which is annexed as ANNEXURE-B, are kept by my client and is the
absolute owner of Item mentioned in list B, and if any damage to the itemSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 28 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
mentioned in list -B, caused by you, you will be held responsible and cost
of damage will be paid by you.
3. That the item mentioned in list B be handover to my client within a 15
days and the possession of the above said flat alongwith item mentioned in
list-B, be handed over ‘to the owner i.e. Smt. Violet Dass D/O Mr. Samuel
Dass R/O 151, Subhash Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
In view of the averments made above you are hereby called upon to
the possession of the above said flat alongwith item mentioned in list -B,
be handed over to the owner i.e. Smt. Violet Dass D/O Mr. Samuel Dass
R/O 151, Subhash Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi failing for
which I have clear instruction to initiate appropriate criminal as well as
civil action against you thereby declare all actions solely taken by you as
illegal at your cost risk and consequences within 15 das from the date of
receipt of this legal notice.
You are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rs. Eleven
Thousand Only) towards the expenses of legal notice.
Copy of this notice is retained in my office for further action.
Sd/
S.K.Sharma
Advocate”
(emphasis supplied)
34. In the present case the subject property was purchased by the husband
of the petitioner who transferred the same to the respondent no. 2, after
disputes between the parties began and more specifically after registration of
FIR no. 0736//2015 dated 05.10.2015, vide General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to sell, Affidavit and Will, all dated 19.11.2015. It has been
claimed by the respondent no. 2 that she had given funds to the petitioner’s
husband to purchase the subject property on the condition that she will be
looked after.
35. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 23 of
the Act of 2007, which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 29 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.–(1)
Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has
transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property
shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the
Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an
estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has
notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-
sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the
organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.”
36. Further, it also important to refer Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of Delhi Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017, which
reads as under:
“(i) A senior citizen/parents may make an application before the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son
and daughter or legal heir from his property of any kind whether
movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible
and include rights or interests in such property on account of his non-
maintenance and ill-treatment.”
37. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra), if the
conditions mentioned in Sub-Section 1 of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 were
attached to a transfer, then existence of such conditions must be established
before the Tribunal. In the present case, the initial purchase of the property
was by the petitioner’s husband. Further, it has come on record that
respondent no. 2 was not residing at the subject property. In the legal notice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 30 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
dated 19.12.2015, issued on behalf of the respondent no. 2, there is no
mention regarding such a condition being attached with the initial purchase of
the subject property. It is only in the application no. 13/17 filed before the
Maintenance Tribunal that an averment to the aforesaid effect was made.
However, in the grounds taken as noted hereinbefore no such plea was taken.
Moreover, admittedly, the said application before the Maintenance Tribunal
was filed after the protection of eviction from a shared household was granted
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 15.11.2016 in CC no.
145/1 (Domestic Violence complaint) filed on behalf of the petitioner.
38. The facts of the present case are covered by S. Vanitha (supra). In the
said case series of transactions had taken place with respect to the subject
property. It was noted that the spouse of the appellant therein had purchased
the said property in his own name few months before the marriage but
subsequently sold it after a few years under a registered sale deed at the same
price to his father, who in turn had gifted the same to his spouse, i.e., the
mother-in-law of the appellant therein after divorce proceedings were initiated
by the husband of the said appellant. In the said case, the in-laws of the
appellant had initiated proceedings under the Act of 2007, wherein the order
of eviction was passed. In the said case, the proceedings under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘PWDV Act‘) had
not been initiated by the appellant and in spite of that it was observed that
recourse to the summary procedure as contemplated under Act of 2007 was
not available to parties for the purpose of “facilitating strategies that are
designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of shared household”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 31 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
It was further held that merely because the ownership of the property had
been subsequently transferred to the appellant’s in-laws would be no ground
to deprive the said appellant from protection under the PWDV Act. In the
present case, despite their being an interim order dated 15.11.2016 protecting
the petitioner from eviction of the shared household, the eviction order was
passed by the Divisional Commissioner vide impugned order.
39. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 on
Division Bench Judgment in Manju Arora (supra). It is noted that the said
Judgment was not rendered in respect of proceedings under the Act of 2007
but it was in respect of an eviction order passed by granting decree of
mandatory injunction to vacate the subject property therein on a suit filed on
behalf of the parents-in-law who were senior citizens against the appellant
therein. In the said case it was also observed that the parents-in-law were
willing and had made alternate arrangements for the appellant’s residence
under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act so as to ensure that her rights are
duly safeguarded while they could live peacefully in their own home. It is also
a matter of record that in the said case, the parents-in-law had been the owner
of the subject property from the very inception and not by way of transfer as
has taken place in the present case.
40. The Divisional Commissioner in the present case had set aside the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by observing that respondent no. 2
was entitled to the eviction order on account of ill-treatment by not allowing
the respondent no. 2 to stay in her own property. The report given by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 32 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
Halqua Patwari was ignored. The said report clearly spells out that the
petitioner was staying at the subject property and the dispute was with respect
to possession of the property. It is not case where respondent no. 2 was
staying at the subject property and was being ill-treated or thrown out of her
residence by the petitioner.
41. The Proceedings under the PWDV Act initiated by the petitioner was
already pending at the time of initiation of the proceedings before the
Tribunal in which respondent no. 2 was also a party.
42. In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha
(supra) the resort to the remedy under the Act of 2007 by respondent no. 2
could not have been deployed to override and nullify the “petitioner’s right to
a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV Act”.
43. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order
18.11.2019 is set aside. Since the proceedings before the PWDV Act is still
pending, where respondent no. 2 is also a party. The learned Court while
determining the competing rights and interests of the parties shall determine
the lis in accordance of law. Further in case respondent no. 2 is ready and
willing to provide an alternate accommodation to the petitioner under Section
17 of the PWDV Act, the same shall be duly considered by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in accordance with law.
44. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 33 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
45. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
46. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Divisional
Commissioner, Department of Revenue, GNCTD, for necessary information
and compliance.
47. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 12, 2026/sn/sg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 13357/2019 Page 34 of 34
Signing Date:13.03.2026
15:10:12
