Delhi High Court
Priyanka Yadav & Anr. vs The Divisional Commissioner & ... on 28 February, 2023
2023/DHC/001542
$~7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th February, 2023
+ CONT.CAS(C) 570/2022
PRIYANKA YADAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Vinay Puneet & Mr Aditya
Kappor, Advocates. (M: 9953837479)
versus
URMILA YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Advocate (M-
8447151507)
8 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 6233/2022 and CM APPL. 18745/2022, 25727/2022
PRIYANKA YADAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Vinay Puneet & Mr Aditya
Kappor, Advocates.
versus
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocate for
GNCTD with Mr. Aaditya Chopra,
Advocates R-1&2 (M- 9818272464)
Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Both these petitions relate to a dispute between Respondent No. 3-
Ms. Urmila Yadav, the mother of the Petitioners on the one hand and the
Petitioners Mr. Amit Yadav, son and Ms. Priyanka Yadav, daughter-in-law
of Ms. Urmila Yadav on the other hand. The subject premises over which
the dispute has arisen is C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. The
admitted position between the parties is that the Petitioners were residing in
the ground floor of the property and the mother was living on the first floor
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
of the property.
3. The Respondent No. 3 had filed a complaint under the Delhi
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules
(Amendment) Rules, 2017 read with Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 26th August, 2020 seeking eviction of the
Petitioners. There are civil suits which are pending between the parties
including the sisters of the Petitioner before the District Courts.
4. In the complaint under the Senior Citizens Act, the District Magistrate
(DM) passed the impugned order dated 1st February, 2021 directing the
Petitioners to vacate the subject property within 30 days. However, the DM,
simultaneously, directed that in view of the various litigations which are
pending, the subject property shall not be sold by the mother. The said
direction is set out below:
"Needless to mention that, this order does not allow the
applicant to sell, alienate, transfer or create third party
in the property no. C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar until the
adjudication of dispute is done by the Hon'ble court and
such judgment attained finality thereafter.
xxxxx
Now, the opposite party may raise plea that eviction
order should not be passed for concern of opposite
party(s) and their minor kid. But, if such this plea are
allowed to be considered in routine manner then
subsequently in every such case the elder parents will
have to face burden of their son(s) and daughter in law,
and legal heir for non-maintenance and ill-treatment and
no order for eviction would be passed. This is not the
Scheme of the act and it is meant for welfare of parents
and senior citizens. The Senior citizens do have a right to
enjoy peaceful possession of property which is protected
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior citizens Act, 2007 (as amended up to date) act and
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
rules under Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016.
Therefore, I am of the view that since this is a case
of ill-treatment and misbehaviour with the applicant by
the opposite parties, it would be appropriate to pass an
eviction order against the opposite party(s) Amit Yadav
and Priyanka Yadav. As per records, a minor son is living
with support of parents i.e. opposite parties and present
order of eviction is also applicable to minor kid, in the
light of settled legal position as discussed in Writ
Petition. (C) 347/2018, AARSHYA GULATI
(THROUGH: NEXT FRIEND MRS, DIVYA GULATI)
AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF
DELKI AND Ors decided by Hon'ble High court of Delhi
vide order dated 30.05.2019.
I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
upon me under The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016
& The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017, hereby direct
the opposite parties namely Sh. Amit Yadav and Smt.
Priyanka Yadav to vacate the part of property in
question i.e. House No:-C-12/377, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053 within 30 days from the date of this order
and handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the
applicant.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, District-
North East shall take coercive measures to enforce the
eviction order through SHO concerned to handover the
possession of property-in-question to the applicant within
07 days, if the opposite parties failed to evict the premises
on their own within the time specified as above. A
compliance report of the same will be filed thereafter.
The file the consigned to record room."
5. This order of the DM was challenged by the Petitioners before the
Divisional Commissioner (DC). Vide order dated 30th April, 2021, the DC
passed an interim order rejecting the prayer for stay. The operative portion
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
of the said order reads as under:
"5. I have gone through the stay application, heard the
parties on the stay application and have given my
considerable thoughts.
6. The District Magistrate vide its impugned order
observed that "the adamant and non- cooperative
behaviour of the son and daughter-in-law towards the
applicant proven to be a cause of disturbances of peace
in the family. If the opposite party had really improved
behaviour or always done service then the applicant was
not required to file instant application and want to get rid
of those legal heir who rendered her financial, social and
emotional support. It is difficult to believe the contentions
of opposite party that they had offer service by taking
care of applicant but the applicant was dissatisfied by
such devoted service so rendered and she wanted to seek
eviction of opposite party".
7. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizen Act, 2007 and Delhi Rules 2009 amended time to
time, is a welfare legislation and balance of convenience
lies in favour of respondents as the Senior Citizen Act and
rules have been framed for the benefit and protection of
senior citizens/Parents, so that they can spend their
twilight years peacefully.
8. That the respondent categorically argued that she is
the victim of harassment and cruelty at the hands of the
applicants and appellant no. 1 threatened her to
implicate her in false cases and wanted to throw her out
from her own house.
9. In the light of the aforesaid facts stated by both the
parties, Prima-facie, the present case does not seem to be
the fit case for stay on the grounds stated by the
applicants/appellants as the appellant no. 2 is earning
well and can maintain his family while residing
separately and no irreparable harm will be caused to
them if stay is rejected.
The next date of hearing in the case is fixed for
02/06/2021 at 11.00 A.M. All the parties are directed to
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
appear on the scheduled date and time."
6. The Petitioners have challenged these orders passed by the DC and
the DM in the present writ petition.
7. Vide order dated 19th April, 2022, the impugned order dated 1st
February, 2021 was stayed. The said order reads as under:
"CM APPL. 18746/2022
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6233/2022 & CM APPL. 18745/2022(Stay)
Since respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are duly represented by
counsel, let a counter affidavit be filed in this petition
within a period of six weeks. Learned counsel for the
petitioner shall take steps for service upon the third
respondent through all permissible modes including via
approved courier services.
For the purposes of considering the grant of interim
directions, the Court takes note of the fact that an order
of status quo operated on the suit which had been
instituted inter partes.
Despite the said order, directions for eviction have come
to be framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens, Act 2007. Matter requires
consideration. Till the next date of listing, there shall be
stay of the impugned order dated 01 February 2021.
List again on 01.09.2022."
8. In the meantime, contempt petition being Cont. Cas.(C) 570/2022
titled 'Priyanka Yadav and Anr. v. Urmila Yadav' came to be filed on the
ground that despite the passing of the interim order by this Court, the
Petitioners have been evicted from the suit property.
9. Both these matters are for hearing today before the Court. Ld.
Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the police have incorrectly stated
that the eviction took place on 8th April, 2022. It is the contention of the
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
Petitioners that the eviction was carried out only in May, 2022, and that the
Petitioners have left the suit property.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Delhi Police, the stand taken is
that the DM had passed an order dated 8th April, 2022 pursuant to which on
11th April, 2022, the eviction was carried out. The said report filed by ASI
Mr. Om Prakash, PS Bhajanpura is set out below:
"It is submitted that I, the ASI, had received an order
from Sh. Geetika Sharma, IAS, DM, North East in DC
Office Complex, Nandnagari, Delhi, according to which
Complainant Smt. Urmila Devi had given a Complaint
before Sh. Geetika Sharma, IAS, DM, North East in DC
Office Complex, Nandnagari, Delhi to get her daughter-
in-law Priyanka Yadav, W/o Amit Yadav and Amit Yadav,
S/o Lt. Ram Sumer Yadav, who used to live in the above
house at ground floor, dispossessed both of them from the
house and to get the house vacated, after carrying out all
the proceedings DM Ma'am had given the order to get
Priyanka Yadav and Amit dispossessed from the house.
But Priyanka Yadav and Amit Yadav by putting the lock
on the house started living at some other place on rent,
house was lying locked. Amit Yadav and Priyanka Yadav
were informed over telephone several times, but they did
not come to the spot. As per the order of Hon'ble DC
Ma'am, I, the ASI, while taking accompanying Constable
Anuj and W/ Ct. Jyotsana No. 3193/NE along, getting
opened the lock in presence of the Complainant Urmila
Yadav and her daughter Manisha Yadav, handed over the
possession of the house to the Complainant. Videography
of entire proceedings were got made. Therefore, after
having prepared the list of the articles kept in the room,
same has been got kept in the custody of the Complainant
and statement of neighbours were recorded. Possession
of the house is now in the custody of the Complainant.
Report is submitted."
11. As per the above report, the Petitioners were informed repeatedly over
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
telephone several times, but did not come to the premises. The ASI,
therefore, states that he along with the Constable Mr. Anuj and lady
Constable Jyotsana got the locks open in present of the mother and her
daughter, Ms. Manisha Yadav and handed over the possession to her. The
police also state that the videography of the proceedings was also done. The
articles which have been kept were also stated to have been left in the safe
custody of the mother and the statements of the neighbours have also been
recorded. The general diary dated 11th April, 2022, time- 18:51:10 is also
placed on record showing that the eviction was effected on 11th April, 2022.
12. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner disputes this position and submits that
the Petitioner has not been shown the videography or not did the Petitioner
received any phone call or message.
13. The position on record today is that the interim order was passed by
this Court on 19th April, 2022. The Police had, by the said date i.e., 11th
April, 2022 given effect to the DM's order dated 1st February, 2021 as
upheld on 30th April, 2021 by the DC. Almost a year had passed since the
rejection of the interim application by the DC on 30th April, 2021 and the
Petitioner had not challenged the said order. The present petition came to be
filed for the first time on 12th April, 2022 which was the day after the
eviction itself had taken place as per the Police.
14. At the time of recording of this observation, Ld. counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic since the Petitioners
were in possession of the property the writ petition was not filed.
15. The Court observes that the index of the present petition clearly
records that the present petition was filed only on 12th April, 2022. As per
the Police the eviction had taken place on 11th April, 2022. In this view of
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
2023/DHC/001542
the matter, it cannot be stated that there was any contempt which was
committed in this matter. Admittedly, the appeal before the DC continues to
remain pending. The appeal would deserve to be finally heard in the above
facts and circumstances.
16. Accordingly, in the above background, the petitions are disposed of in
the following terms:
i. The parties shall now appear before the DC on 29th March
2023. DC shall take up the appeal filed by the Petitioners and
decide the same within a period of three months from 29th
March, 2023.
ii. The Respondent No.3 shall be bound by the order passed by the
DM by which the DM had directed the mother to maintain the
status quo and not create any third-party interest as extracted in
paragraph 3 above. This order shall be subject to the final
orders of the DC.
iii. The Police shall place the videography, as also the relevant
documents showing that the eviction had been effected on 11th
April, 2022 before the DC, and the same shall be considered by
the DC while deciding the final appeal.
17. List before the Divisional Commissioner on 29th March, 2023.
18. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending
applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
dj/am
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:02.03.2023
17:07:42
