Delay In Filing Complaint No Ground For Denial Of Relief; Not Mandatory For Senior Citizen To Prove Ill-Treatment By Legal heirs Or Children For Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act: Delhi High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta restored the District Magistrate’s eviction order, directing the removal of the senior citizen’s legal heirs from the upper floors of the property. The Court held that a parent may seek eviction under the Senior Citizens Act from any property in which they hold rights or interests, without being required to first demonstrate mistreatment or lack of maintenance. It further observed that a lapse in approaching authorities does not disentitle senior citizens from statutory protection, since hesitation or delay in initiating proceedings cannot defeat the remedies provided by the enactment. The dispute concerned the senior citizen’s request for eviction to secure his residence and personal safety.
The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which had set aside an eviction order dated 24.03.2022 issued by the District Magistrate (West) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Delhi Rules. The petitioner, a senior citizen residing on the first floor of the property with his wife, alleged ill-treatment and harassment by certain close relatives residing on the second floor. He asserted that the property had been allotted to him in 1976, and that he constructed additional floors in 2003. He submitted that the respondents were initially permitted to stay as licensees in 2014 and that a rent agreement was later executed. He relied on complaints dated 03.03.2021 and 07.06.2021, a public notice disowning one relative, and an FIR dated 17.05.2023.
The respondents contested the eviction, asserting long-term residence, contribution to construction, and inheritance-based rights. They contended that the dispute was civil in nature, that no ill-treatment occurred, and that the petitioner’s rights were limited to one floor. The proceedings involved provisions under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Senior Citizen Rules concerning eviction applications and the scope of the District Magistrate’s authority.
The Court recorded that the appellate authority set aside the eviction order “primarily on the premise that ill-treatment or non-maintenance by the legal heirs/children is a pre-requisite for evicting legal heirs/children…,” and stated that “this very premise is misconceived.” It observed that the petitioner “has been suffering on account of the ill-treatment meted out to him and his wife,” referring to complaints filed and the petitioner being “constantly subject to a barrage of abuses.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had published a notice “categorically disowned respondent no.2,” and referred to the FIR dated 17.05.2023 filed by one of the petitioner’s daughters. It recorded that reliance by the appellate authority on the petitioner’s delay in taking action was misplaced, stating: “even in a situation where a senior citizen does not rush… the same is not a ground to deny… the rights flowing from the said enactment.”
Citing precedent, the Court quoted that the Senior Citizen Act “is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens,” and that “the Act must be interpreted… in a manner which furthers the object and purpose of the statute.” It further quoted that “a senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated.”
The Court recorded findings that the appellate authority itself had noted that it was “not the civil court to decide the ownership/title” and that senior citizens “can evict their legal heirs from any kind of property including the one in which they have interest only.”
It stated that the respondents’ claim that the petitioner had rights only in the first floor was “wholly misplaced,” observing that the respondents’ induction into the property was “solely traceable to… the right, title and interest of the petitioner.” It also referenced prior decisions noting that proceedings under the Act are “not to ascertain the title… the enquiry is limited to see as to whether the senior citizen is being harassed….”
The Court recorded that “a senior citizen can seek to evict his/her legal heirs/children from his/her property in which he/she has a ‘right or interest’.” It further quoted that “such ‘rights or interests’… need not necessarily be… ‘right of exclusive ownership’.” It held that the appellate order was “in the teeth of the aforesaid legal position.”
The Court directed: “the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 is hereby set aside. The order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the District Magistrate (West)… is accordingly restored. Respondent nos.2 to 7 shall vacate the second floor of the property… within a period of four weeks from today. In case the respondents fail to vacate… the concerned SHO shall render necessary assistance. Nothing in this judgment shall preclude the local body from taking action as per law in respect of any unauthorized construction.” The petition was disposed of in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Ms. Poonam, Mr. Ujjal Das, Mr. Amit Kumar, and Mr. Manvender Rawat, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel; Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Mr. Rohit Sharma, and Mr. Mukesh Tiwari, Advocates
Case Title: Piare Khan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10296
Case Number: W.P.(C) 14078/2023
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
