Pooja Mehta & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 31st March, 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,[1] who, as the Appellate Authority under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2016,[2] upheld the eviction of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 – the daughter-in-law and son of Respondent NO. 3, an elderly senior citizen. The impugned order originates from the earlier order dated 18th September, 2020, issued by the District Magistrate, permitting Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reclaim possession of their property, i.e., Sai Naman Aster Estate, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi.[3] This case, therefore, brings to the forefront the interplay between the rights of a daughter-in-law in a shared household under domestic violence laws and the protective measures granted to senior citizens for their welfare and property security under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.[4] The Court is now called upon, to balance these conflicting rights and determine the legality of the eviction order in light of established precedents and statutory provisions. The parties

2. Petitioner No. 1, who married Petitioner No. 2 in 2013, is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are children from Petitioner No. 1’s prior marriage and have been impleaded in the present proceedings, asserting their independent rights to the Subject Property based on their residence therein. While they seek to bolster the case of Petitioner No. 1, it remains undisputed that they are both adults— Petitioner No. 3 has since married, and Petitioner No. 4 is currently pursuing “impugned order” “Senior Citizens Rules” “Subject Property” “Senior Citizens Act” higher education through a master’s program.

3. Respondent No. 3, a senior citizen, is the mother of Petitioner No. 2 and the widow of Respondent No. 2, Vijay Mehta. It was Mr. Vijay Mehta, who had initially commenced the eviction proceedings before his unfortunate demise. Nevertheless, the rights and claims of Respondent No. 3 persist and form the core of this dispute. As a senior citizen, she claims exclusive possession of the property, invoking specific legal protections, including those under the Senior Citizens Act. Petitioners’ Contentions

4. Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, counsel for the Petitioners, contends that the impugned order is marred by several legal and factual infirmities. He summarises the case for the Petitioners as follows: 4.[1] The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 took place on 6th October, 2013. This was the second marriage for both parties: Petitioner No. 1 had lost her first husband, while Petitioner No. 2 was a divorcee. From her previous marriage, Petitioner No. 1 has two children, now impleaded as Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Following the marriage, the Petitioners took up residence with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the “shared household” of Petitioner No. 1. The other son of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 resides with his spouse within the same compound, but in a separate house. 4.[2] For nearly five years after the marriage, the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cohabited without significant conflict. However, in May, 2018, tensions abruptly surfaced. Respondent No. 2 lodged police complaints against Petitioner No. 1 at Police Stations Naraina and Mehrauli, alleging an apprehension of physical harm. These complaints were retaliatory, a “counterblast” to Petitioner No. 1’s refusal to comply with the alleged sexual advances of Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, Petitioner No. 1 had brought these advances to the attention of Respondent No. 3, adding to the friction. 4.[3] Around the same time, another source of discord emerged: Petitioner No. 2’s intention to sell certain land he owned. This move reportedly caused friction between him and Respondent No. 2, culminating in an attempt by the latter to thwart the sale. Matters escalated to a point where Respondent No. 2’s chartered accountant, acting through a company he owned, obtained an order from this Court in Grand Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Nanak Mehta,[5] directing Petitioner No. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.05 Crores with the Court’s Registry before proceeding with the land’s alienation. 4.[4] On 31st October, 2018, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 visited the office of their family-owned business, Mehta Offset Pvt. Ltd., where matters took a distressing turn, whereby Respondent No. 2 not only verbally abused Petitioner No. 1, but also sexually assaulted her, further threatening dire consequences should she ever set foot in the office again. In the ensuing chaos, Petitioner No. 2 was also assaulted. Shocked and deeply shaken by her father-in-law’s conduct, Petitioner No. 1 filed a formal complaint with Police Station Naraina, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0297/2018 under Sections 323, 354, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4.[5] The gravity of these events, coupled with daily tensions in the household, compelled Petitioner No. 1 to seek legal recourse. She approached the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate – 03, Mahila Court, South District, Saket, by filing a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[6] on 17th November, 2018. The Court, taking O.M.P. (I) (Comm.) 309/2018. “DV Act” cognizance of the urgency and seriousness of the situation, issued an interim order on 30th November, 2018 in the following terms:7 “Considering the record, this court deems it fit to pass protection order in favour of aggrieved as protecting the rights of aggrieved is bounded duty of the present court, hence, all the respondents are restrained from dispossessing the aggrieved from the property, address of which is mentioned in memo of parties without following due process of law.” 4.[6] Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on or about 20th November, 2018, which subsequently led to the registration of FIR NO. 754/2018 against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, alleging theft. In a further escalation, Gautam Mehta (the other son of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and brother to Petitioner No. 2), along with Radhika Saraf (their daughter and Petitioner No. 2’s sister) and Respondent No. 3, approached the National Company Law Tribunal,[8] Principal Bench, with a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. They alleged mismanagement and oppression concerning the affairs of Mehta Offset Pvt. Ltd., implicating Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The NCLT, in its order dated 30th January, 2019 in Gautam Mehta & Ors. v. Mehta Offset Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 02/241- 242/PB/2019, granted status quo regarding the shareholding and the composition of the Board of Directors of the company. 4.[7] Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an eviction petition against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, which was allowed by the District Magistrate through order dated 18th September, 2020. The said order was received by the Petitioners on 19th September, 2020 and would have become operative on 19th October,

2020. However, at the instance of the Respondents, certain police officials prematurely and forcibly evicted the Petitioners from the Subject Property “DV Order” “NCLT” on 20th September, 2020. The Petitioners assailed the said action before this Court in W.P. (C) 7023/2020, whereby this Court through order dated 28th September, 2020, not only granted interim protection to Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 4, but also ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the police officials involved in the eviction. 4.[8] Subsequently, the Petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. The impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is, according to the Petitioners, a non-speaking and erroneous order. It fails to address the grounds raised in the appeal, makes no reference to the relevant legal framework, and disregards principles of judicial (or quasijudicial) discipline. Notably, it consciously ignores the DV Order, which expressly restrained Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from dispossessing Petitioner No. 1 from the shared household. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Sanjivani Jayesh Seernami v. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors.,[9] emphasized the supremacy of orders passed under the DV Act in disputes concerning shared households. This precedent clearly establishes that an executive officer, acting under the Senior Citizens Act, cannot render an order that effectively nullifies a judicial determination made under the DV Act. Therefore, any order passed in violation of this principle is liable to be set aside. 4.[9] Moreover, the Petitioners highlight what they perceive as a deliberate attempt to undermine their legal protections. The impugned order, although passed on 31st March, 2021, was only served on 12th April, 2021. This timing, they argue, was orchestrated to exploit the upcoming public holiday on 14th April, 2021, creating a narrow window where Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in cooperation with the police, could once again resort to physical intimidation to forcefully evict the Petitioners from the premises, similar to the earlier incident in September, 2020. This sequence of events underscores a pattern of disregard for the due process and raises serious questions about the propriety of the Respondents’ actions.

4.10 The Subject Property is owned by a company, Aster Estates Pvt. Ltd., 33% shares of which are held by Vijay Mehta HUF, in which Petitioner NO. 2 is a co-parcener. This fact alone establishes a legitimate claim of Petitioner No. 2 in the property. While Respondent No. 3 also holds 33% of Aster Estates’ shares, the title or ownership of the Subject Property cannot be said to lie with her. More importantly, the property is also recognized as the shared household of Petitioner No. 1, who under the DV Act, has a right to reside therein, and any attempt to evict her without due process infringes upon her legal protections. Consequently, the order directing her eviction is prima facie unsustainable.

4.11 Furthermore, the impugned order disregards the interim protection granted to Petitioner No. 1 under the DV Act, which remains in force and has been consistently overlooked by the authorities. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja10 explicitly acknowledges the rights of a daughter-in-law to reside in a shared household, yet this crucial legal principle has been entirely disregarded in the present case.

4.12 The order issued by the District Magistrate under the Senior Citizens Act fails to establish any substantive grounds for the eviction. In fact, a review of the order reveals a lack of a credible basis for invoking the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act. The report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not draw any substantive conclusions with respect to the averments made by the Respondents. The available evidence did not warrant a definite opinion on the alleged ill-treatment, and the absence of any tangible proof in support of the allegations renders the eviction order inherently illegal. Therefore, the factual basis for initiating proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act is vitiated. Yet, these critical infirmities in the impugned order were inexplicably ignored by the Divisional Commissioner. This failure to exercise due diligence not only demonstrates a lack of application of mind, but also constitutes an overreach of the statutory provisions of the Act.

4.13 Petitioner No. 1 is currently bedridden and faces severe financial constraints. She has no independent source of income and has been left without support from her husband. Both her children from her first marriage are residing with her, adding to her responsibilities. Her daughter, despite being married, is also living with her due to certain unfortunate circumstances. Therefore, directing her eviction from the Subject Property would not only disregard her right of a shared household, but also inflict undue hardship and prejudice against her. The eviction would leave her without shelter, violating her fundamental right to residence. Her situation demands a holistic consideration that acknowledges the right to live with dignity and the necessity of a secure dwelling, as contemplated under the law.

4.14 The Petitioners desire to peacefully cohabit with Respondent No. 3 in the Subject Property, and are willing to furnish an undertaking to the said effect.

4.15 Without prejudice to the aforementioned contentions, even if this Court were to accept the fact that some form of accommodation must be provided to the Respondent, such a determination can only be appropriately examined within the ambit of the ongoing proceedings under the DV Act. This Court should refrain from stepping into an arena where jurisdiction has already been exercised by the concerned forum. Therefore, any adjudication on the question of alternative accommodation should be left to the Mahila Court, which is already seized of the matter.

4.16 The entire proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act were initiated at the behest of Nanak Mehta, who appears to be acting in collusion with Respondent No. 3. This raises questions about the bona fides of the proceedings, further indicating that they were pursued with ulterior motives, rather than for the legitimate purpose of securing the welfare of a senior citizen. Respondents’ Contentions

5. Per contra, Mr. Vivek Chib, Senior Counsel for the Respondents, argues that the jurisdictional issue raised by the Petitioners is not novel and has been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja and S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.11 These landmark decisions have unequivocally established that the rights under the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act must be balanced and harmonized. He submits that, in this case, the scales of harmony weigh heavily in favour of upholding the rights of the senior citizen. His submissions, structured around key facts and legal principles, are summarized as follows: 5.[1] The present case exhibits circumstances so compelling that the only viable means to restore peace and dignity in the life of the senior citizen, Respondent No. 3, is to direct the immediate eviction of the Petitioner. While the DV Act safeguards the rights of women in a shared household, it does not override the right of senior citizens to live a life free from emotional and physical distress. In this instance, the continued presence of the Petitioner has become a source of ongoing conflict and suffering, which cannot be ignored. The facts are glaring, and any further delay in eviction would amount to a denial of the senior citizen’s right to live with dignity, as enshrined under the Senior Citizens Act. 5.[2] There is an undeniable connection between Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, establishing that they are not merely co-residents but active collaborators. This is palpably evident from their joint legal representation in both the present proceedings and their coordinated legal strategy when securing bail in the FIR related to misappropriation of property and household articles. This joint approach portrays a shared intent to circumvent the law, thereby bolstering the case for the eviction order. In essence, their actions indicate a concerted effort to retain control over the property, to the detriment of the senior citizen’s welfare. The attempt by Petitioner No. 1 to distance herself from her husband, Petitioner No. 2, is a calculated move aimed solely at creating a pretext to continue occupying the Subject Property. This deliberate attempt to obfuscate their relationship is nothing more than a strategic ploy to undermine the eviction process and maintain control over the Subject Property, despite the rightful claims of Respondent No. 3. 5.[3] The Petitioners have misused the provisions of the DV Act as a shield to justify their continued occupation of the property. However, the facts on record clearly establish that this occupation has inflicted emotional distress and turmoil upon Respondent No. 3. In light of these facts, the senior citizen’s right to peace and security must take precedence. The harmonization envisaged by the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja and S. Vanitha cannot be achieved by perpetuating a situation that leaves the senior citizen in a state of vulnerability and strife. 5.[4] The severity of the familial discord is highlighted by the fact that Respondent No. 3, along with her now-deceased husband, Respondent NO. 2, had to resort to the drastic step of publicly disowning her son, as evidenced by the public notices issued in this regard. Such an extreme measure is not undertaken lightly and is indicative of a complete and irreparable breakdown of the familial relationship. This disownment underscores the gravity of the situation and the extent to which the actions of the Petitioners have disrupted the peace and well-being of the senior citizen. 5.[5] Moreover, the allegations raised by Petitioner No. 1 in the DV proceedings further reveal the acrimonious and toxic nature of the relationship between the parties. The accusations made by her include the use of abusive and derogatory language against the senior citizens, which significantly contributed to the deterioration of their health and well-being. It is precisely due to this hostile environment that Respondent No. 2 suffered a decline in health, ultimately passing away amidst ongoing turmoil and distress. Given these circumstances, Respondent No. 3’s desire to live in a peaceful environment, free from the presence of both Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is entirely justified. Their eviction thereof is not only a matter of legal right, but also a pressing necessity for the senior citizen to restore her sense of security and tranquillity in her own home. Reliance on this aspect is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha. Analysis and findings

6. The Court will first address the jurisdictional issue: whether the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act can pass an eviction order in light of an existing protection order, and residence claims over shared household under the DV Act. Jurisdictional issue

7. Mr. Bajaj contends that the impugned eviction order is invalid, as it disregards the DV Order. He argues that the eviction order directly conflicts with the subsisting protection order and, therefore, the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. However, the Court finds this argument unconvincing. The conflict between the rights of a daughter-in-law and those of senior citizens, who are in-laws, has been the subject of several rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court. The latest authoritative guidance on this matter comes from S. Vanitha, wherein the Supreme Court examined the overlap between the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act. In that case, the Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of both the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act must be interpreted in a manner that preserves the intent of both statutes, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of senior citizens with the protections granted to a woman in a shared household.