Mamta v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) and Ors

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by Ms. Mamta, the Petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.4 - Mr. S. Krishnan Nath Rao, challenging the impugned order dated 12th April, 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority of the Divisional Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and Delhi Rules thereto.

3. The brief background is that the Petitioner was married to Respondent No.4’s son - Late Mr. Sunder Ganesh Rao, who is stated to have committed suicide on 19th July, 2019. Initially, the Respondent No.4 had filed a petition for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, which was decided by the District Magistrate vide order dated 30th January/1st February, 2021. The findings of the District Magistrate in the said order were that the Respondent No.4 is the sole and 2021:DHC:1509 absolute owner of the suit property. The observation of the District Magistrate was that the Petitioner lived in the suit property i.e., House No.4, Gali No.15B, Prem Vihar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi along with her associate (boy friend) and in effect, the Respondent No.4 was not being allowed to live in his own property. The District Magistrate had accordingly directed the Petitioner herein to vacate the said suit property. The findings of the District Magistrate are set out herein below:

4. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner. Vide the impugned order dated 12th April 2021, the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the prayer for stay of the order of the District Magistrate on the following grounds:

6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the stay application of the appellant is hereby dismissed with the direction to the appellant to vacate the suit property.”

5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the findings of the Divisional Commissioner are not valid, inasmuch as the Petitioner being the 50% owner of the property, cannot be evicted in this manner.

6. On behalf of the State/SDM - Mr. Rizwan, ld. Counsel points out the various findings of the Divisional Commissioner and submits that the present is no case for any discretion to be exercised, under Article 227 of the Constitution.

7. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the present case, the Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Respondent no.4. The marriage took place on 11th March 2007 and there are two children. The husband of the Petitioner is stated to have died under mysterious circumstances. The respondent no.4, filed a complaint under the Act and the DM called for a report from the SDM, under Rule 22(3). After perusing the said report, the SDM arrived at the conclusions set out above. Thereafter the Divisional Commissioner has also arrived at similar conclusions after viewing a video recording etc., wherein the Petitioner’s friend is stated to be present and the Petitioner has used abusive language against the Respondent no.4. A perusal of the orders passed by the District Magistrate as also the Divisional Commissioner shows that the finding of both the authorities is that the Respondent No.4 is not being permitted to reside in his own house and his belongings have been removed. Moreover, there are allegations of ill treatment and harassment of Respondent No.4.

9. Considering the concurrent findings of fact, given by both the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain a challenge to the same in the present writ petition. The factual issues, if any, have to be gone into by the authorities concerned, and cannot be delved into in a petition under Article 227.

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

11. At this stage, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has two minor children, and that the appeal is still pending. He prays that the appeal may be expeditiously disposed of. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.