Delhi High Court
Razia Begum vs The Appellate Court Of Divisional ... on 30 April, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 338/2024 & CM APPL. 24424-24425/2024
RAZIA BEGUM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Asad Iqbal, Advocate
versus
THE APPELLATE COURT OF DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: None
% Date of Decision: 30th April, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 24425/2024 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
LPA 338/2024 & CM APPL. 24424/2024
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of
the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which
stands extended to the High Court of Delhi, challenging the impugned
judgment dated 19th February, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) 7611/2022, disposing of the said writ petition with directions to the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each per
month i.e., a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-, towards maintenance, to the
Appellant herein.
2. The Appellant herein had initially filed an application under Rule 22
(3) (1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016 ('Rules, 2016') seeking eviction of
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein, from the property bearing No. A-99/2,
Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi -
110025, which consists of the basement plus four upper floors, having two
flats each ('subject property').
3. Respondent No.3 is the grandson of the Appellant and is living in one
of the flats, on first floor of the subject property. He is the son of Mohd.
Khalid Jirjis.
4. Respondent No.4 is the widowed daughter-in-law of the Appellant.
She was married to Mohd. Tarique Jirjis and has possession of a flat on the
fourth floor of the subject property.
5. Respondent No.5 is the builder, who constructed the existing building
on the subject property in collaboration with the Appellant i.e., the owner of
the land.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge
vide his impugned judgment dated 19th February, 2024, has permitted
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to continue to occupy the flats in the subject
property and has only directed payment of maintenance. He states that
however, the Appellant is seeking eviction of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from
the building and she wishes to reside in the flat located on the first floor of
the subject property. He states that the basement is in an unliveable
condition. He admits that the Appellant's younger son i.e., S.M. Ghazalee
Jirjis, is instructing him along with the Appellant in the prosecution of the
appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the
appeal.
8. The Appellant has stated in this appeal that she permitted Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 to occupy the flats in the newly constructed building on the
assurance that they would give maintenance to the Appellant. It is stated that
however, she has now been relegated to living in the basement of the
building, which is inhabitable and she is not being paid the maintenance by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
9. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has directed both
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to pay Rs. 10,000/- each, per month, to the
Appellant so as to ensure that she receives a payment of Rs. 20,000/- per
month. The said direction was challenged by Respondent No. 3 herein in
LPA No. 288/2024 and the same has been dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 9th April, 2024. Thus, the direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month has attained finality.
10. The said direction for payment of maintenance issued by the learned
Single Judge is in consonance with the facts pleaded by the Appellant in this
appeal. The occupation of the flats by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with the
permission of the Appellant is also admitted in this appeal.
11. The Local Commissioner's report1 dated 9th February, 2023, records
that the Appellant is, in fact, not living in the suit property and is residing
separately with her daughter in some other property. As per the report, it is
the younger son, S.M. Ghazalee Jirjis, who is residing in the basement and
has control of the flats on the ground floor. In the LPA 288/2024 filed by
Respondent No. 3, it has been contended that the present proceedings have
Filed in W.P.(C) 7611/2022
been initiated at the behest of S.M. Ghazalee Jirjis.
12. The Local Commissioner's report shows that the basement and flats
on the ground floor are in occupation of S.M. Ghazalee Jirjis, the younger
son, with whom the Appellant has a cordial relationship. One flat on the first
floor is with Respondent No. 3 and one flat on the fourth floor is with
Respondent No. 4; and both Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been directed to
pay maintenance of 10,000/- each. In fact, Respondent No. 3 has relied upon
the collaboration agreement dated 17th February, 2015 which contains an
addendum as per which flats on each floor were divided amongst all the
children of the Appellant herein and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are occupying
the flats as per the said addendum.
13. In the overall conspectus of the facts, the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to pay maintenance
appears just and reasonable in the facts of this case. In fact, if the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 fail to make the payment of maintenance as
directed in the impugned judgement, the Appellant will be at liberty to then
seek eviction of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as per Rule 22 (3) (1) of Rules,
2016.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground for interference in the
present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed along with
pending applications.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 30, 2024/hp/aa
