Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court restored the eviction order of the District Magistrate, directing the respondent to vacate the disputed properties. The Court also upheld the requirement for the respondent to continue paying INR 15,000 per month to the petitioners until the properties are vacated.
Facts:
The petitioners, elderly parents, sought the eviction of their son from two commercial properties. They alleged physical and mental harassment from their son and his wife. The properties in question are claimed by both the parents and the son. While the parents claimed ownership based on registered wills and deeds, the son argued that one property was bequeathed to him by his grandmother, and the other was bought from his earnings. The District Magistrate had ordered the son’s eviction due to ill-treatment, but the Divisional Commissioner reversed this decision. This led both parties to approach the High Court.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to seek eviction of their son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- Whether the son’s claim of ownership over the properties was sufficient to prevent eviction.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that they were the rightful owners of the properties based on registered wills and title deeds. They contended that their son mistreated them, forcing them into continuous litigation. They sought eviction, as the properties were their only source of income.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent (son) denied his parents’ ownership of the properties, asserting that one property was bequeathed to him by his grandmother, and the other was purchased with his own earnings, though registered in his mother’s name. He argued that the District Magistrate’s eviction order was improper as it did not consider his ownership rights and that the Senior Citizens Act could not resolve a civil property dispute.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and relevant rules, noting that senior citizens can seek eviction if they have a demonstrable interest in the property. The Act’s provisions are intended to provide timely relief and do not require full adjudication of property title. The Court noted that the Act operates in a summary manner, and absolute ownership is not a strict requirement for eviction.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to the case Manju Tokas & Anr. v. Govt of NCT Delhi, which clarified that senior citizens with any right or interest in a property are entitled to seek eviction under the Senior Citizens Act. The Court emphasized that a protracted title dispute should not hinder the eviction proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found that the District Magistrate had correctly concluded the parents were subjected to ill-treatment by their son, and the Divisional Commissioner had erred in reversing the eviction order. The Court emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act was designed to protect elderly individuals from mistreatment and that allowing the son to remain on the property would undermine this objective. Additionally, the son’s claims of ownership were not substantiated by any civil court ruling, and the Court rejected the argument that the eviction proceedings should be delayed for a full adjudication of title.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s decision and restored the District Magistrate’s order of eviction. It directed the respondent to vacate the properties and continue paying INR 15,000 per month to the petitioners until possession is handed over. The Court found no legal basis for the son’s objections and upheld the parents’ right to seek eviction based on the established ill-treatment.
