Ram Nath Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “A) for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction ororder challenging the validity, legality, and correctness, quashing and/ or to be set aside of the impugned order under section 22(3)(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, in the case of, "Ramnath Yadav Vs. Krishna & Anr., Case no. 1/108/2021" dated 24.06.2022 and 13.08.2022 passed by Sh. Hemant Kumar, IAS, Ld. District Magistrate / Senior Citizen Tribunal District Southwest assailing KUMAR KAURAV the rights of the petitioner/ senior citizen aged about 72 years and further affirmed by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Divisional Commissioner/ Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order under appeal no. 576/2022 dated 27.10.2023.”

2. The petitioner Mr. Ram Nath Yadav is the father in law of respondent no. 2 i.e. Mrs. Krishna and the father of respondent no. 3 i.e. Mr. Chandradeep Yadav.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Ram Nath Yadav, is a Senior Citizen aged about 72 years. He is a retired Delhi Police officer, having served for approximately 37 years and retired in December 2008. He is a heart patient and suffers from old-age ailments. The Petitioner is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2, Smt. Krishna, and the father of Respondent No.3, Sh. Chandradeep Yadav, who are husband and wife.

4. He claimed to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No. Z 2A-79/1, Gali No.4, Durga Park, South-West, New Delhi-110045 ('the property'). The property consists of ground floor, first floor and one room set on the second floor. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be residing on the ground floor, whereas, according to the Petitioner, the remaining floors have been kept under lock by the said Respondents.

5. The Petitioner invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Act of 2007”) and the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (“Rules of 2009”), for eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the property, under Case No. 1/108/2021 before the District Magistrate/Senior Citizen Tribunal, South-West.

6. In his complaint before the District Magistrate, the Petitioner seems to have alleged that the daughter-in-law is quarrelsome and has disturbed the peace of the household. On account of the quarrel with Respondent No.2, the Petitioner made a complaint to Police on 25.07.2021. The District Magistrate then directed a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (“SDM”). The SDM in his report dated 26.02.2022 stated that there was no property dispute, that the property is in the name of the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner had been dispossessed by the Respondents.

7. The District Magistrate, however, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, found that the eviction proceedings were initiated on account of matrimonial discord between the daughter-in-law and her husband, and did not find any material to infer ill-treatment against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed vide orders dated 24.06.2022 and 13.08.2022.

8. On an appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner, the Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the District Magistrate and rejected the appeal vide impugned order. The relevant paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is extracted hereunder:

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, as of now, there are no proceedings pending under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the Petitioner has not been evicted; instead, the Petitioner had voluntarily left the house in question. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further submits that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no objection if the Petitioner stays with them. Even otherwise, they only occupy the ground floor and the first and second floors are still available for the Petitioner to stay peacefully.

11. This Court in Darshna v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,[1] held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be liberally construed as one of the primary objects of the Act is to protect the life and property of the Senior Citizens.

12. Simultaneously, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a special legislation enacted for the protection of women from domestic violence and provides, under Section 17 read with Section 19, for a woman’s right to reside in a shared household. The expression “shared household” is defined in Section 2(s) of the PWDVA to mean a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent.

13. The governing legal position on the interaction between the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDVA, 2005 was authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru W.P.(C) 10463/2015, decided on 15.03.2017. Urban District & Ors.[2] Supreme Court held that the summary eviction procedure under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to override a woman’s right to reside in her shared household as protected by the PWDVA. The claim that the premises constitute a shared household would have to be determined by the appropriate forum and cannot simply be obviated by exercising summary eviction powers under the Senior Citizens Act.

14. The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha further held that both Statutes must be construed harmoniously and that the dominant purpose of each must be analysed to determine which should prevail in the event of conflict. The ratio was specifically guided by the unique facts of that case, a deserted wife with no other shelter, facing eviction from property that had been transferred to defeat her residential rights. The Court was emphatic that such a transfer was being used as a device to defeat the claims of the daughter-in-law.