Delhi High Court Strikes Down Eviction Over Procedural Breach | Failure To Issue Mandatory Notice Violates Natural Justice
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the failure to issue a mandatory show cause notice under Rule 22 (3)(1)(iv)(v) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 ("2009 Rules") vitiates the eviction proceedings. The Court quashed the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Single Judge, concluding that the absence of a notice specifying grounds of eviction deprived the affected party of a substantive right and caused serious prejudice.
The intra-court appeal challenged the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had disposed of W.P.(C) 4643/2021. The original writ petition challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 31.03.2021, affirming the eviction of the appellant (daughter-in-law) and her husband from the property identified as SAI NAMAN, Aster Estate, Khasra No. 638, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
The eviction was initiated by the mother-in-law (Respondent No.2) and her late husband under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the 2009 Rules. The District Magistrate, by order dated 18.09.2020, ordered eviction of the appellants and the respondent No.3 (son of the complainant).
The appellant contended that no separate show cause notice under Rule 22 (3)(1)(iv)(v) was issued, violating mandatory statutory requirements. They further argued that the property was not ancestral or self-acquired but owned by a company in which Respondent No.2 had shares. Therefore, the DM lacked jurisdiction to pass an eviction order.
The appellants also relied on Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act"), asserting that the property qualified as a "shared household," and hence eviction was impermissible without due process. A prior protection order from the Mahila Court in favour of the appellant supported this position.
Respondent No.2 argued that the appellant misused DV Act provisions in collusion with her husband. Counsel stated that the Single Judge appropriately harmonised rights under the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act by directing payment of Rs. 75,000 monthly for alternative accommodation.
The Division Bench extensively analysed Rule 22(3)(1)(iv)(v) of the 2009 Rules. It observed, "Rule 22 (3)(1)(iv) requires the DM to form an opinion... and thereafter issue a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause..." The Court stated, "The nature of the notice... shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made... and shall require all persons concerned to show cause."
On the importance of this notice, the Court stated, "Communication of ground on which order of eviction is proposed... is a substantive right... deprivation of such opportunity causes serious prejudice to the person." It rejected the argument that mere participation in earlier proceedings could substitute for this notice, stating, "Such participation will not be in fulfilment of the requirement of communication of grounds... and therefore... the order of eviction is vitiated."
Addressing the harmonisation between the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, noting, "In deference to the dominant purpose of both legislations... the tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act must grant such remedies as do not obviate competing remedies under other statutes."
The Division Bench remarked, "The opportunity as contemplated in Rule 22(3)(1)(iv)(v)... cannot be said to be an empty formality." It concluded that issuance of a show cause notice is mandatory and non-compliance renders the proceedings and resulting orders invalid.
The Court held: "In view of the discussions made and reasons given above, we find that the order of the DM, that of the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge herein, deserve to be set aside." Consequently, the eviction order was quashed.
The Court held: "Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 18.09.2020, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the DM and the order dated 04.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside." Consequently, the eviction order was quashed.
The Court further directed: "The proceedings of the petition/application made under Rule 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 are revived and restored to the file of the DM, who is directed to conclude the same and pass final orders within two months from today, in accordance with law and also taking into account the observations made hereinabove in this judgment."
"There shall be no orders as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Mr. Harsh Khanna, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Jain, Ms. Manya Hasija, Mr. Sandeep Khanna, Ms. Tejasvi Gupta, Mr. Yatharth Gupta and Mr. T. Illoyrasu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel for GNCTD (R-1); Mr. Vivek Chib, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Ms. Priya Pathania and Mr. Abdul Hasan Khan, Advocates for R-2; Mr. Vansh Chawla, Ms. Shruti Khosla, Mr. Manoj Loomba and Ms. Nitika Kohli, Advocates for R-3.
Case Title: Pooja Mehta & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4424-DB
Case Number: LPA 12/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Read/Download order]
