New Delhi: Holding that the law protecting elderly parents extends beyond monetary maintenance, the Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction of a woman from the property of her mother-in-law who is a senior citizen.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday upheld provisions of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 that allow a district magistrate to order eviction of children or legal heirs in cases involving non-maintenance or ill-treatment of senior citizens.
The daughter-in-law, the petitioner, had married the woman’s son in 1996. Following matrimonial discord, she approached a court in 2018 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking protection against being being removed from the property which she claimed was her “shared household”.
The mother-in-law later sought her eviction under the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules, alleging ill-treatment and seeking to live peacefully without being drawn into the matrimonial dispute. The district magistrate made an inquiry and initially rejected the request, but the divisional commissioner reversed that decision in 2022 and ordered the petitioner to vacate. The petitioner then moved the high court.
A central question before the High Court was whether the state government could provide for eviction under the Senior Citizens Rules, when the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not expressly mention an eviction mechanism.
The petitioner argued that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) was “ultra vires”, or beyond the scope of the 2007 Act. According to her, the 2007 Act was enacted mainly to provide for the maintenance and protection of parents and senior citizens, and the state government could not use rules, which are a form of delegated legislation, to create a substantive power of eviction that Parliament itself had not expressly provided.
Under Rule 22(3)(1), a senior citizen can approach the district magistrate seeking eviction of a son, daughter or legal heir from their property on account of non-maintenance or ill-treatment. If the district magistrate finds that the occupant is not properly caring for or is ill-treating the senior citizen, he/she can order the occupant to vacate the property.
What HC said
The high court rejected the argument, noting that the object of the Senior Citizens Act was not limited to financial maintenance.
The Act also seeks to ensure the welfare and protection of senior citizens, including protection of life and property and their ability to lead a normal life, it reasoned. “The Act is a welfare legislation and must be construed liberally to advance its beneficial purpose.”
The bench noted that the Act does not specifically provide for eviction, but quoted a Supreme Court ruling in the S. Vanitha case of 2021 where it said that “the tribunal may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens”.
The high court also emphasised that Section 22 of the 2007 Act empowers the state government to confer such powers and impose such duties on a district magistrate as may be necessary to properly implement the Act. Therefore, this provision gave the government sufficient authority to frame the rules, including an eviction procedure under Rule 22(3)(1). The rules, therefore, did not go beyond the parent Act (i.e., 2007 Act) merely because eviction was not expressly mentioned in the statute.
Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act
The case also raised the question of how the overriding provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence (DV) Act should operate when a senior citizen seeks eviction of a woman who claims a right to reside in the property as her shared household.
Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act gives the law overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in another legislation, while Section 17 of the DV Act also contains an overriding clause that gives a woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in it.
Referring to the S. Vanitha case, the high court noted that both Acts are welfare legislations intended to protect vulnerable groups—the law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the DV Act’s purpose cannot be ignored and both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed.
In this case, the court noted that the petitioner was employed as a post-graduate teacher, earned a substantial income and had a house at a separate location. Her claim to continue living in the shared household was therefore not indefeasible—meaning a right that cannot be undone—and had to be weighed against her mother-in-law’s right under the Senior Citizens Act to lead a normal life.
The court also interpreted the broader meaning of ‘legal heirs’. It said that the expression concerning children and legal heirs must be understood broadly enough to include their families as well. It also rejected the argument that the Senior Citizens Act permits only maintenance and not independent eviction proceedings.
It said the two remedies operate separately. Maintenance proceedings are initiated before the maintenance tribunal, while eviction proceedings are initiated before the district magistrate with an appeal to the divisional commissioner. Therefore, upholding the 2022 Divisional Commissioner’s order, the high court dismissed the appeal.
Alfreza Ahmed is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Why Delhi HC quashed man’s life term in POCSO case, backing call for ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause