Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th April, 2023
SHEENA TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Atul Kharbanda, Advocate along with Petitioner in person (M-
9811333939).
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Ms. Pallavii Singh, Advocate for R-1.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CAV 183/2023
2. The caveat is discharged, as the caveator has appeared. W.P.(C) 4498/2023 & CM APPLs.17194 (interim stay), 17195/2023 (for exemption)
3. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 22nd March,
2023.
4. The background of the case is that a complaint was filed before the District Magistrate by Respondent No.2- the father-in-law of the Petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking her eviction from property bearing Plot No.698, Akshardham Apartment, Sector-19, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter ‘subject property’). By order dated 23rd February, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate, the Petitioner was directed to vacate the subject property. An application seeking stay of the said order was filed before the Divisional Commissioner along with an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate.
5. By way of the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the stay application in the appeal challenging the District Magistrate’s order dated 23rd February, 2023. Also, vide the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.25,000/- as monthly rent to the Petitioner.
6. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has a right to peacefully live in the subject property on the fourth floor and that the amount of Rs.25,000/- would be insufficient for her to find an alternate premises.
7. On behalf of Respondent No.2, it is submitted that completely baseless and unlawful allegations have been raised against the said Respondent which has repeatedly resulted in litigations between the parties. Criminal complaints are also stated to have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2. In fact, the said Respondent has been forced to move out from the subject property because of the ill-treatment which has been meted to him.
8. During the course of arguments, it has been revealed that the Petitioner has in fact rented out other floors of the subject property and this fact was not revealed in the writ petition. She has also been receiving rents from the tenants residing in the other floors of the subject property.
9. The Petitioner is present in Court and her statement has been recorded which reads as under: I reside on the fourth floor of the property at Plot NO. 698, Akshardham Apartment, Sector-19, Pocket-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter “Subject property”). There are two tenants living on the second floor and third floor of the subject property. My fatherin-law had asked me to sign the rent agreements with the said tenants. I am collecting the rent from said tenants. (A rent agreement dated 4th February, 2022 executed between Ms. Sheena Tomar and Ms. Radhika in respect of the third floor of the subject property marked as ‘Exhibit R-1’ was shown to the Petitioner at this stage). I have seen the document marked as ‘Exhibit R-1’. I admit that the signature on the said document are mine. I had informed my counsel about the fact that the subject property was given on rent.”
10. From the Petitioner’s statement, it is clear that she has in fact executed rent agreements with the tenants and is enjoying the rent from the remaining floors of the subject property.
11. The Divisional Commissioner’s order is clear to the effect that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 cannot live in the same property. In fact, the said Respondent has been forced to move out of the subject property and live with his daughter. Under such circumstances, the Divisional Commissioner has observed as under:
12. Thus, the Divisional Commissioner was clearly of the view that the relationship between the parties is far from cordial. In fact as per the Respondent no.2, allegations of rape have been made against him without any basis and thus he is completely unable to live in the same property as the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 has disowned his son- Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner in August, 2020. Moreover, the Divisional Commissioner was also of the opinion that the criminal cases filed by the Petitioner herein were a counter blast to the eviction petition filed by Respondent No.2 herein. The submission of the Petitioner that the parties could live on different floors of the subject property was also rejected by the Divisional Commissioner in view of the gravity and nature of criminal allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2.
13. In view of the above discussion, the Divisional Commissioner has directed as under: “10. In facts and circumstance above:i. The appellant shall vacate the property in question by 5th April, 2023. ii. The respondent no.1 shall have right to live peacefully in the property in question w.e.f 6th April, 2023, iii. The respondent no. 1 shall pay Rs. 25,000/- per month in the first week of month to the appellant towards the cost of rent in her bank account. The appellant shall find the accommodation at her own level. It shall be the responsibility of the appellant to provide her bank account to the respondent no. 1, with a copy to this appellate authority, immediately. iv. If the respondent no. 1 fails to pay the said amount, the appellant and her child shall have the right to go back and take possession of the fourth floor of the property in question. However, this option to revert back to the property in question will not be available to the appellant if the appellant fails to inform her updated bank account to respondent no.1. v. Meanwhile, third party interests shall not be created in the property in question during the pendency of appeal.”
14. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 as also for the Petitioner that as of yesterday i.e., 10th April, 2023, the Petitioner has already handed over the possession of the subject property to the concerned District Magistrate.
15. After having perused the record and having heard the ld. Counsels as also the parties who are also present, it is clear to the Court that if the parties live in the same premises, there is a possibility of untoward incidents. Under these circumstances, no case is made for interference in the impugned order in this writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with all pending applications.
16. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal within a period of two months. In deciding the appeal finally, the Divisional Commissioner, shall not take into consideration any observations made in the present order.
17. The facts relating to renting out of the property by the Petitioner and earning rent therefrom have not disclosed in the Petition. However, no costs are being imposed and no action is being taken against the Petitioner for having concealed material facts, considering the relationship between the parties.
18. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE APRIL 11, 2023 Rahul/SK