Pritam Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

(vi) Respondent nos. 2 to 5 failed to establish or provide any proof that they are maintaining or taking care of the petitioner.

(vii) Noting the legal position, and also elaborately noting the case laws which mandate that the Senior Citizen Act be interpreted to advance the purpose thereof, the eviction order was passed against the respondent no(s). 2 to 5.

11. An appeal therefrom filed by the respondent no(s). 2 to 5, has been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order, which is quite cryptic. There are only one or two effective paragraphs in the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. The same are reproduced hereunder:-

respondent failed to prove ill-treatment, Accordingly, appeal is hereby allowed and Appellants cannot be thrown out from the suit property under the Provisions of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Amended Rules.”

12. It thus appears that the order passed by the District Magistrate was set aside by the Appellate Authority only on the basis that the petitioner herein had failed to establish any ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of respondent no(s). 2 to 5.

13. The fact that the petitioner moved out from the suit property some years ago, prior to filing of the application under Rule 22(3)(1) seeking eviction of the respondent nos. 2 to 5, also swayed with the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order.

14. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the Appellate Authority proceeds to set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate on a misreading of Rule 22(3) of the Senior Citizen Rules as the said provision does not provide a period of limitation from the incident of ill-treatment within which an application by the senior citizen under the Rules must be filed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter ‘the Senior Citizen Act’) read with the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 do not provide for any period of limitation within which the senior citizen is required to file an application seeking eviction and moreover, the petitioner had been compelled to move out of the subject property and reside with his daughter in her matrimonial home on account of the ill treatment and harassment meted out by the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment in Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2517 to submit that it is not necessary for the senior citizen seeking eviction of their legal heir/s, to establish ill treatment in order to invoke the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act and the Rules made thereunder. The scheme of the Senior Citizen Act and Rules made thereunder only require that a case be made out for the need for protection of the senior citizen’s property.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed for being vexatious inasmuch as it has been filed by the petitioner only at the instance of the petitioner’s daughter / respondent no.2’s sister who is not a party to the present proceedings.

19. At the outset, it is necessary to take note of the scope of the statutory provisions, under which, the application under Rule 22(3)

REASONING AND CONCLUSION Rule 22 – of the Senior … (3)(1) Procedure for eviction from property/residential building of Senior Citizen/Parents,-

(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.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner / DM shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrates for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within 15 days from Citizen Rules was filed by the petitioner.

20. The scope and import of the statutory prescription under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements. It has been noticed therein that the Senior Citizen Rules have been framed in furtherance of formulating an ‘action plan’ for protection of life and property of senior citizens pursuant to Section 22 of the Senior Citizen Act. In view of the Senior Citizen Act being a welfare legislation, it has been held that the same shall also be interpreted liberally in a manner which furthers the object and purpose of the statute. The Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2, while considering the overarching theme of the Senior Citizen Act, has observed as under:-

the date of receipt of such application.

(iii) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall immediately submit its report to the Deputy Commissioner / DM for final orders within 21 final orders within 21 days from the date of receipt of the complaint / application.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate during summary proceedings from the protection of senior citizens parents, shall consider all the relevant provisions of the said Act. if the Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate is of opinion that any son or daughter or legal heir of a senior citizen / parents is not maintaining the senior citizen and ill treating him and yet is occupying the property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and include rights or interests in such property of the senior citizen, and that they should be evicted. The Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them / him / her. … (4) Appeal –

(i) The appeal against the order of Dy. Commissioner / DM shall lie before Divisional Commissioner, Delhi.

(ii) Provisions regarding disposal of appeal before Appellate Tribunal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. “Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”

13. The preamble of the Act states that it is intended towards more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)

14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted.”

21. It is notable that the beneficial dispensation created under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules do not require, as a pre-condition of invocation/application thereof, that the senior citizen has suffered ill treatment and/or non-maintenance at the hands of his/her children where the children of the senior citizen have no right or interest over the property in question.

22. Various judgments of this Court have specifically held that it is not necessary for a senior citizen to prove any ill treatment at the hands of his or her children before seeking their eviction by taking recourse to Rule 22(3)(1) in cases where the children do not have any right or interest over the property in question.

23. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments of co-ordinate benches of this Court in Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2517 and Smt. Darshana v. Government of NCT Delhi and Others 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10535. As such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority misdirects itself in holding to the contrary. The said order also omits to take notice of the very elaborate, cogent findings in the order passed by the District Magistrate, as regards ill treatment of the petitioner.

24. In Smt. Darshana v. Government of NCT Delhi and Others 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10535, which has been upheld by a division bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed in LPA 537/2018, it has been held as under – “3. Darshna has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 08.06.2018 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the District Magistrate, whereby she has been directed to vacate the first floor of House No. 2777/21, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereafter ‘the Premises’) occupied by her and handover peaceful possession of the property to respondent no. 2 (Sh. Dhani Ram).

4. Darshna is the daughter-in-law of Dhani Ram and is currently residing in the Premises along with Sh. Dhani Ram and his wife. It is stated that she occupies only one room in the said premises. xxx

29. It is also relevant to note that Darshna has no right, title and interest in the premises and, therefore, cannot insist on residing with Dhani Ram and his wife especially when the relationships between the said parties have deteriorated to the extent as indicated above.”

25. In Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2517 a coordinate bench of this Court, inter alia, relying on the aforesaid decision, has held as under:-

15. In Darshana (supra), this Court, relying upon Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has held as under: “14. The scope of the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the Rules is to grant protection to the parents, including with respect to their property. The scope of this Act is not to punish the children and therefore, once it is established that the children have no right over the property of the parents, the fact that the parents do not wish to have their children staying with them is enough for invoking the Act and the Rules. “19. It is also relevant to refer to section 22 of the Act which is set out below:— “(2) The State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens.” It is relevant to note that Section 22(2) of the Act expressly provides that State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. The aforesaid Rules are an aid of the said provision. The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016, entitling a senior citizen to seek eviction of his son, daughter or his legal heirs on account of ill-treatment were framed in aid of protecting the life and property of senior citizens and not in furtherance of Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the assumption that it is necessary for a senior citizen to claim maintenance for seeking the protection of the Act or the Rules made there under is erroneous. xxx

24. Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 as subsequently amended in 2016 is a piece of welfare legislation. It must be read in meaningful and liberal manner so as to aid and further the object of the enactment and not in a manner as to restrict its width. xxx

28. It is also relevant to note that Darshna has no right, title and interest in the premises and, therefore, cannot insist on residing with Dhani Ram and his wife especially when the relationships between the said parties have deteriorated to the extent as indicated above.”

16. The above judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed in LPA 537/2018, Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi, observing as under: “13. Keeping in view the objective of the Act and it is hightime that senior citizens/parents are allowed to live in peace and tranquility, the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. The Appeal is dismissed.”

17. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in its judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, has also held as under: “Section 22 falling in Chapter V of the Act enjoins a duty upon State Government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 32 (2) (f) also empowers the State Government to frame Rules in respect of comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. In terms of such provisions, the Rules have been framed which causes a duty on the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with a sense of security and dignity. Apart from framing such Rules, the Action Plan for protection of life and property of the senior citizens has been published which inter alia provides for eviction of unauthorized occupants as reproduced above. The petitioner is a licensee living in the premises on the basis of concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. As a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy the possession of the property licensed but without creating any interest in the property. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in part of the property. Such property owned by respondent NO. 4 is required to be protected as mandated by Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Rules and para 1 of the Action Plan. There cannot be any effective protection of property of the senior citizens unless the District Magistrate has the power to put the senior citizen into possession of the property and/or to restrain or eject the person who wishes to interfere in the possession of the property of the senior citizen. Protection of the property of a senior citizen includes all incidences, rights and obligations in respect of property in question. Once a senior citizen makes a complaint to District Magistrate against his son to vacate the premises of which the son is a licensee, such summary procedure will enure for the benefit of the senior citizen. The petitioner would have no right to resist his eviction only on the ground that the Act does not contemplate eviction of an occupant. Eviction is one part of the right to protect the property of a senior citizen which right could be exercised by a senior citizen in terms of provisions of the statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified.”

18. A reading of the above judgments would clearly show that a senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir. ”

26. In Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal and Anr. while disposing of RSA No. 136/2016 and CM No. 19123/2016, a coordinate bench of this Court observed as under: “Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.”

27. Thus, a senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir.

28. The order passed by the District Magistrate, rightly notes that the respondent no(s). 2 to 5 had been unable to establish any right, claim or interest in the subject property. It was also rightly noticed that an attempt to challenge the title of the property was wholly misconceived. After taking note of the ill-treatment meted out by the petitioner, the order of eviction was rightly passed by the District Magistrate.

29. The Appellate Authority appears to have also swayed on account of the fact that the petitioner has not been residing in the suit property for a few years and had filed eviction application after he had already shifted from the property. However, the Appellate Authority misses the point that the occasion for the petitioner to move out from the property was on account of the ill treatment at the hands of his children.

30. It is noticed by the District Magistrate that a legal notice was given by the petitioner to the respondent nos. 2-5 as far back on 06.11.2017 followed by a public notice in a local newspaper dated 08.11.2017 which states as follows:

31. In the present case, there is a chequered history of the children of the petitioner trying to force the petitioner to vacate the property. It may be that the petitioner succumbed to the pressure of his children and moved out of the property and filed the application under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules, only thereafter. However, the same by itself would not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to the beneficial provisions of the Senior Citizen Rules. The beneficial provision/s of the Senior Citizen Rules, are intended to provide redressal for this very situation viz. where a senior citizen, having suffered harassment at the hands of his/her children, has been forced to move out of his own house at their behest.

32. The Senior Citizen Rules cannot be construed in a narrow and constricted manner in which the Appellate Authority has sought to do, which completely defeats the purpose of the beneficial provisions. The Rules do not expressly require that the senior citizen should be residing at the property at the time when the application under Rule 22 of the Senior Citizen Rules is filed. There is no basis for reading such a requirement into the said Rule.

33. Also, the very fact that the petitioner is unable to live in his own house, which is his only residential abode, and has been forced to take shelter at his married daughter’s house, is itself demonstrative of the ill treatment suffered by him. The said ill treatment affords a continuous cause of action to the senior citizen. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that just because the senior citizen was not residing at the subject property when the application under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules was filed, the same ipso facto becomes non-maintainable. As such, the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable.

34. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 has also relied upon the fact that in the civil suit [CS No. 603/17] previously filed by the petitioner before Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 16.12.2017, the relief of declaration and permanent & mandatory injunction was denied vide judgment dated 11.02.2020. The same is cited as a circumstance which impedes the grant of relief of eviction in favour of the petitioner in the proceedings under the Senior Citizen Act and the Senior Citizen Rules. The said contention is misconceived.

35. A perusal of the findings rendered in judgment dated 11.02.2020 in CS No. 603/17 reveals that the title of the petitioner as regards the subject property was affirmed by the Civil Court on the basis of the sale deed of the subject property in favour of the petitioner. In this regard reference may be made to the following passages of the said judgment dated 11.02.2020 and the same read as under: “9. Plaintiff had sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful enjoyment of the suit property and further to restrain them from entering into the suit property and to prevent them from creating third party interest in the said property. Plaintiff has proved by way of document Ex.PW1/B that he is the title owner of the suit property. Defendants have conceded the execution of these documents in the name of the plaintiff, however, it is their plea that plaintiff did not have adequate amount of funds to purchase the land underneath the suit property on his own. Similarly, they have argued that the construction over this piece of land i.e. the suit property was made by the use of funds of defendant no.1. In this regard, it had been claimed by the defendants that it was the father of the plaintiff who had provided the consideration amount for purchase of the land underneath the suit property in the name of his son i.e. the plaintiff and therefore, it was claimed by the defendant no.1 that he had an equal share in the property purchased out of the funds of his grandfather, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff was the owner as per the title documents of the property. The defendants had also taken a plea that the land on which the suit property was constructed was purchased out of the joint family funds of the family of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and therefore, it was claimed that the suit property was an asset of the Hindu Undivided Family property of their family. In order to prove this claim that the land underneath the suit property was purchased by the joint family funds, the defendants did not adduce sufficient evidence. Only a bare plea as to existence of a Hindu Undivided Family was taken in the written statement without claiming that the said joint family had an income nucleus to acquire such property. It was not alleged that there was any joint family income or that the father of the plaintiff was the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family of which the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 were coparceners. It has been time and again observed by the Hon’ble Apex court that there is no legal presumption as to existence of a joint family property on account of existence of joint Hindu Undivided Family. It has further been observed by the Supreme Court that the one who asserts about existence of a Joint Hindu Undivided Family property must prove the existence of the nucleus with which the joint family property was acquired. The courts have also observed that it might be possible that a member of the joint Hindu Family acquire separate property in his own name out of his own funds which is blended with the joint family income and in such a case, the property cannot be held to be a joint family property. It has also been held in the case of, “Achuthan Nair v. Chinnammu Amma & Ors. (AIR 1966 SC411)” that when a property stands in the name of a member of the joint family, it is incumbent upon those asserting that it is a joint family property to establish it. In the case of “Baikuntha Nath vs. Shashi Bhushan (AIR 1972 SC 2531)” it has been held that if a joint family has been found to be in possession of nucleus sufficient to make acquisition, then only presumption arises that acquisition standing in the name of member of the family is an acquisition by the joint family. Therefore, it becomes well settled that acquisition of a property by a member of the joint family in the absence of nucleus would not make it a joint family property.

10.

36. Moreover, it is relevant to highlight that the denial of relief of declaration and mandatory & permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner vide the aforesaid judgment dated 11.02.2020 in CS No. 603/17 was based only on the premise that there was some inconsistency in the pleadings filed on behalf of the petitioner (plaintiff therein) in the civil suit inasmuch as the petitioner had claimed to be in possession of the subject In the present case, the defendant has failed to prove that a nucleus of joint Hindu undivided family was in existence, out of which the land over which the suit property has been constructed was purchased. It appears that the defendants had intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the concept of joint family with the concept of Hindu Undivided Family, while contesting the suit in order to stake their claim over the suit property. Furthermore, it was not pleaded in the written statement that defendants had filed a suit for declaration or cancellation of the title documents of the plaintiff or a suit for partition against the plaintiff to realize their share out of the suit property. Thus, in view of existence of the title documents Ex.PW- 1/3 i.e. sale deed of the suit property in the name of plaintiff, it is trite to record that plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property and is entitled to protect it against illegal alienation to third parties much to his detriment. He is accordingly entitled to the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property.” property as on 16.12.2017 i.e. the date of the filing of the suit whereas in his cross examination, he had admitted to have left the subject property and had started to reside with his daughter in her matrimonial home prior thereto.

37. The same has no bearing on the entitlement of the petitioner to seek eviction in the proceedings under the Senior Citizen Act and the Senior Citizen Rules, which are in the conspectus of the peculiar framework and objects thereof i.e. to provide more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens.

38. It may also be noticed that the Supreme Court in Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 699, has recognized that in certain cases, where a senior citizen has divested himself of title of the property in question from where eviction of child/children is sought, it would be up to the “purchasers” or persons who now hold title over the property in question, to initiate appropriate eviction proceedings against occupants of the subject property.

39. However, the factual situation in the present case is quite different.

40. In Samtola Devi (supra), the senior citizens therein had initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizen Act seeking eviction of their son from the property in question, after having executed documents which were indicative of volitional steps being taken by the senior citizen himself, to part with his estate. It was in this context that the judgment in Samtola Devi (supra) was rendered. The same is in stark contrast to the factual position in the present case.

41. Also, in the present case, no such ambiguity exists as regards (absence of) any “right/share” of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the subject property. Moreover, the findings of the Civil Court in judgment dated 11.02.2020 [in CS No. 603/17] which have attained finality, also do not lend any credence to the contentions raised by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to question the title of the petitioner over the subject property.

42. Furthermore, the facts in the present case are quite glaring [in contradiction to Samtola Devi (supra)] inasmuch as the petitioner herein has been ousted by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 from the subject property which was his only residential abode and as a result of which, the petitioner has been compelled to reside in the matrimonial home of his daughter.

43. In these circumstances, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 have no justification to resist eviction from the subject property.

44. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate.

45. At this stage, it is necessary to take note of the fact that the detailed arguments in the present appeal were heard on 24.02.2025, on which date, the judgment was reserved in the matter. However, on 04.03.2025 an application being CM No. 15133/2025 came to be filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, stating that the petitioner had transferred his title in the subject property to his daughter – Smt. Ranjeet Kaur by executing certain registered documents in her favour. The documents enlisted in the aforesaid application are as under– “(i) General Power of Attorney executed by the Petitioner in favour of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, vide Registration No. 18, Volume No. 11160, Book No.IV, From Pages 66 to 70, dated 01.01.2018;

(ii) Will executed by the Petitioner in favour of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, vide

(iii) Will dated 15.11.2017 executed by the Petitioner in favour or Smt.

46. The said application has been filed on the basis that respondent no(s). 2 to 5 came to know only on 01.03.2025, after inquiring from the Subthe petitioner in favour of his daughter. As such, it is contended that since the petitioner is no longer the owner of the subject property, the present proceedings at his behest are non-maintainable and therefore should be dismissed on this ground alone.

47. I find no merit in the contention of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in this regard as well. Even assuming that the petitioner has executed certain title documents in favour of his daughter, in whose house he has been forced to take shelter on account of ill treatment meted out by the respondent no(s). 2 to 5, the same would not detract from his right to seek appropriate relief under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizens Rules. On the contrary, the same clearly brings out and reinforces the predicament and desperation of the petitioner on account of the circumstances to which he has been subjected to.

48. It is noted that the petitioner, alongwith his daughter, has appeared during the course of hearing and this Court is constrained to observe that the condition of the petitioner is pitiable. The petitioner has been forced out of his own house, built using his own resources during his working years, by respondent nos. 2 to 5 i.e. his son, daughter-in-law and their children. He has been forced to take shelter in his married daughter’s house. During this process, he may have executed certain documents in respect of the subject property in favour of the daughter. But these circumstances, far from repelling the applicability of the provisions of the Senior Citizen Rules, only seek to demonstrate that the present case exemplifies the mischief which the Senior Citizen Act, and the Senior Citizen Rules thereunder, seek to remedy. It is clear that the petitioner/senior citizen has been suffering harassment in his twilight years, has been deprived of his residential abode and forced to take refuge in his daughter’s matrimonial home. Such a situation warrants application of the beneficial provision/s embodied in Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Senior Citizen Rules. The same entitles a senior citizen to file an application seeking eviction of his children from a property in which the senior citizen may have “rights or interests”. It has been held that such “rights or interests” in the property in question need not necessarily be construed to be only a ‘right of exclusive ownership’. In support of the abovesaid proposition, reliance is placed on a judgment of the division bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar and Others v. Divisional Commissioner Department of Revenue Government of Delhi and Others 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3354, wherein it has been held as under – “9.

10. This Court, at this moment, is not going into the question as to whether the Senior Citizens Act provides for over-riding a decree or a As rightly pointed out by the authorities below and by the learned Single Judge of this Court the exercise under the Senior Citizens Act is not to ascertain the title of the property in question. The enquiry is limited to see as to whether the senior citizen is being harassed by his children or not and if the senior citizen is harassed then for his/her welfare it is necessary that the children/legal heirs are asked to evict the property. The proceedings which are summary in nature are not to decide the title of the property. In view of the above, the principle contention of the Appellants herein that the Respondent No. 2 is not the owner of the property in question is insignificant. Any right which the Appellants want to establish has to be established under the Civil Code by filing a suit before the Civil Court. finding of the Civil Court regarding the title of the property.

11. A Single Bench of this Court in its Order dated 08.07.2022 in W.P. (C) 9757/2022 titled as Mr. Neeraj Bhasin v. Divisional Commissioner, Delhi, which was consequently upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 25.08.2022 in LPA 446/2022, has observed as under: The Appellants have not been able to show any semblance of right, title or interest superior to that of Respondent No. 2 over the property in question and in absence of any such assertion, the Orders of the authorities below and the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be found fault with.

3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for:— (a) appropriate mechanism to be set-up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens; (b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens;

(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons;

(d) setting-up of old age homes in every district.

4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”

10. The Court also bears in mind the following pertinent observations as were entered in Arshiya Gulati (Through: Next Friend Mrs. Divya Gulati) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [(2019) 261 DLT 373]:—

interference from their children/legal heirs. Further, a senior citizen cannot knock the door of civil Court to fight a legal battle to obtain the possession of the property as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 27 of the Act. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (Retd.) and Anr. (supra) wherein in para 37 it is held as under:

11. As is evident from the above, the principal objective of the Act is to make effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. These are senior citizens who are left to fend for themselves all alone in the dusk of their lives, have been exposed to years of emotional neglect and receive no financial or emotional support from their children and heirs. Therefore, Courts and authorities administering the provisions of the Act are obliged to confer paramount consideration on these issues. Regard must also be had to the fact that the word “property” under the Act is defined to mean property of any kind whether moveable or immoveable, ancestral or self-acquired and includes rights or interests in such property. It would therefore clearly follow that a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may be only able to establish a “right” or “interest” in such property even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right. Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical wellbeing and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act.”

12. In view of the above, this Court in not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge that for peaceful existence of the Respondent No. 2, who is fearing for his life, it is necessary for the Appellants herein, who have not been able to prove any right superior to the right of the Respondent No. 2 on the property in question, to evict the premises.

13. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any.” The findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are in consonance with the Senior Citizens Act which has been brought for the welfare of the senior citizens. Going into the nature of right/title/interest of the parties in the property in question, at this juncture, would be counterproductive for the objectives of the Senior Citizens Act. Any right/title/interest in the property in question can be established by the Appellants herein only through proper proceedings and by adducing evidence in a Suit before the Civil Court.

49. Thus, this Court has held that the proceedings under the Senior Citizen Act and the Rules framed thereunder, are summary in nature and are not for the purpose of deciding the title over the property in question. It has been conclusively held that a senior citizen is entitled to claim relief under the Senior Citizen Act and the Rules thereunder despite his/her rights in respect of the property in question, being lower than a right of exclusive residence. Ultimately, the authorities under the Senior Citizen Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act.

50. The rights or interests, as referred to above, and on the basis of which an application seeking eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) may be filed, includes even a mere right of residence or possession in the property in question. In this regard, reference is also apposite to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunny Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11640 which has also been relied upon by another Division Bench of this Court in Darshna v. Government of NCT 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11641. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sunny Paul (supra), reads as under – “17. A reading of the Rules framed by the Government of NCT clearly reflect that a senior citizen can file an application seeking eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his self acquired or ancestral property on the ground of ill-treatment or non maintenance. The vires of these Rules has not been challenged by the appellant. The limited challenge is to the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal to order an eviction under the Act of 2007. So noting the limited challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal and keeping in view the fact that the enactment being a social legislation and the same requires to be given liberal interpretation to achieve the mandate of the Act of 2007 i.e for the welfare of the parents and senior citizens and for the protection of their life and property, there is no doubt that the Tribunal does have the jurisdiction to direct vacation by the children of any property in which the senior citizen has a right of residence/possession. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Krishna (1979) 2 SCC 468 wherein it was held that the construction which tends to make any part of the Statute meaningless or ineffective must always be avoided and the construction which advances the remedy intended by the Statute should be accepted.”

51. Furthermore, the senior citizen is entitled to seek relief under this enactment even where the title of the property is disputed and the senior citizen only has a “modicum of right” in the subject property. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the decision in Manju Tokas and Anr. v. GNCT Delhi through Divisional Commissioner and Others 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3974, wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Court considered the question as regards cases where the title over the property in question is disputed, whether an application before the tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act would cease to be maintainable on account of the pending title dispute and that the same would only be maintainable once the title over the subject property is settled.

52. The factual conspectus in Manju Tokas (supra) is that the title over the property in question was earlier held by one Mr. Ajay Tokas. The dispute over title of the property in question in the aforesaid case arose upon the death of Mr. Ajay Tokas between the petitioner therein (wife of Mr. Ajay Tokas) and the respondent no.3 therein (mother of Mr. Ajay Tokas and the senior citizen). While the petitioner therein claimed that the title over the subject property had been bequeathed upon her by Mr. Ajay Tokas, the respondent no.3 therein claimed that she had acquired title over it by way of a sale deed executed in her favour by Mr. Ajay Tokas.

53. In light of these facts, the Court therein held that a senior citizen would be entitled to seek relief under the Senior Citizen Rules even if the senior citizen only has a “modicum of right” over the property in question. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under –

54. The Court in Manju Tokas (Supra) also held that while the tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act is not empowered to decide a title dispute, a pending title dispute between the parties would not preclude the tribunal from protecting the interests of the senior citizen i.e. for the senior citizen to not be harassed and be able to live properly inasmuch as relief under the Senior Citizen Act and the Senior Citizen Rules is not contingent on the senior citizen having a right and interest over the subject property which is superior to the persons against whom the relief of eviction is sought. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under –

55. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in CM APPL. NO. 15133/2025 filed by the respondent no(s). 2 to 5; the same is consequently dismissed.

56. In view of the factual and legal position as noted hereinabove, the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside, and the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, is restored.

57. Respondent no(s). 2 to 5 are directed to vacate the property in question in terms of the directions of the District Magistrate within a period of 30 days, and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner.

58. The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police is directed to ensure compliance with this order in terms of Rule 22(3)(3)(ii) of the Senior Citizen Rules. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to ensure compliance.

59. The present petition along with pending application/s, is disposed of in the above terms.

60. List for reporting compliance on 07.07.2025.

SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 13, 2025