Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sourabh Maini And Another vs District Magistrate, Gurugram And ... on 14 November, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Date of Decision:14.11.2024
Sourabh Maini and another
.....Appellants.
Versus
District Magistrate, Gurugram and others
.....Respondents.
(2) CR No.1431 of 2024 (O&M)
Ashima Maini
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Shashi Maini and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nitika Sharma & Mr. Yash Pal Sharma, Advocates
for the appellants (in LPA No.764 of 2024) and
for the petitioner (in CR No.1431 of 2024).
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana
for respondents No.1 & 2 (in LPA No.764 of 2024).
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3 (in LPA No.764 of 2024) and
for the respondents (in CR No.1431 of 2024).
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
The afore-captioned Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Revision
are being taken up together for discussion and adjudication as these have
1 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -2-
arisen out of the lis pertaining to the same subject matter between the
members of the same family, headed by one C.K. Maini (since deceased).
2. Before adverting to the discussion on the merits of the above-
referred cases separately, we deem it expedient to have a bird's eye-view
of the undisputed facts, culminating in the filing thereof. The wife of said
C.K. Maini named Shashi Maini, arrayed as respondent No.3 in the LPA
and respondent No.1 in the Civil Revision (here-in-after to be referred as
'the senior citizen'), is the mother of Sourabh Maini and mother-in-law of
Ashima Maini (appellants No.1 and 2 in the LPA and here-in-after to be
referred as 'the son and daughter-in-law' respectively). The house bearing
No.1132, Sector 17-B, IFFCO Nagar, IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram (for short
'the subject property'), which is the bone of contention between the parties
herein, belongs to the senior citizen, by way of its purchase by her husband
in her name vide registered Conveyance-Deed dated 15.12.1997. However,
the son had preferred a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 for seeking the probate on the basis of an unregistered Will dated
01.10.2012, by claiming that his father had executed the same and had,
thereby, created only a life-time interest in favour of the senior citizen in
respect of his (father's) movable and immovable properties, including the
subject property but it is pertinent to mention here that vide the order (copy
annexed as R-3/4 in LPA) as passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Gurugram on 27.10.2022, the afore-said petition had been rejected while
allowing the application, as moved by the senior citizen and her daughter
(arrayed as respondents No.2 & 3 therein) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
2 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -3-
3. Letters Patent Appeal No.764 of 2024 has been preferred by
the son and daughter-in-law to lay challenge to the judgment handed down
by learned Single Judge on 19.10.2023, qua the dismissal of the Civil Writ
Petition No.25202 of 2022, filed by them to impugn the order Annexure
P-1, as passed by the District Magistrate on 07.09.2022 in the application/
complaint/petition Annexure P-8 (for short 'the application') moved by the
senior citizen under Sections 23(2)(i) and 5 of the Haryana Maintenance of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Senior Citizens Act'),
whereby they have been directed to vacate the subject property within one
month from the date of the order and also to pay maintenance allowance to
the senior citizen @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The senior citizen had filed the
above-mentioned application against the appellants-son and daughter-in-
law and had averred therein that after the demise of her husband, they (son
and daughter-in-law) took control over all her (senior citizen's) bank and
DEMAT accounts, assets and securities as well as her debit and credit
cards as she was not technically proficient enough, so as to operate or use
the same and later-on, they did not let her operate or to have access to the
afore-said accounts etc. and rather, the son sold her shares worth Rs.92 lacs
(having the current value of Rs.3.25 crore approximately), redeemed the
fixed-deposits worth Rs.30 lacs and withdrew/transferred and utilized more
than Rs.1.06 crore from her bank accounts and refused to return the amount
so received/withdrawn by him and thus, he and the daughter-in-law had
siphoned-off her assets on the pretext/false assurance that they would take
care of her basic needs. The daughter-in-law used to pick-up arguments and
3 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -4-
quarrels with her over trivial matters and to, thereby, cause humiliation
leading to grave mental trauma for her and they (the son and daughter-in-
law) had ousted her from the possession of the properties, purchased by her
late husband in her name, including the subject property.
4. The son and daughter-in-law contested the above-referred
application by filing their joint Reply and also the Counter-Reply to the
Re-joinder filed by the senior citizen. After hearing both the parties and
perusing the record, the District Magistrate passed the afore-referred order
dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) and categorically observed therein that
the mother-in-law was a senior citizen and she was the absolute owner in
possession of the subject property by virtue of the above-said Conveyance-
Deed dated 15.12.1997 and the son and daughter-in-law owned a ready to
move-in luxury apartment in Noida, as given by the husband of the senior
citizen and that the senior citizens, i.e the father and mother, could eject
their son and daughter-in-law from their house to live peacefully in the
evening days of their life and during the hearing, it became clear that the
son and daughter-in-law did not take proper care of the senior citizen and
indulged in quarrelling with her. The afore-mentioned order was assailed
by the son and daughter-in-law by filing the above-referred Civil Writ
Petition which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment on 19.10.2023.
5. By way of Civil Revision No.1431 of 2024, the daughter-in-
law has laid challenge to the judgment (Annexure P-15) as handed down
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram (for short 'the appellate
Court') on 31.01.2024, dismissing the CRA No.224 of 2022, filed by her to
4 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -5-
assail the order Annexure P-9 handed down by learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Gurugram (for short 'the trial Court') on 14.09.2022 in complaint
Annexure P-7, instituted by her against the senior citizen, her sister-in-law,
the husband of sister-in-law and one Parmod P. Chopra (arrayed as the
respondents therein) under Sections 12, 17, 18(a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and
19(a), (c), (d) and 19(8), 22 & 23 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the D.V. Act') and allowing CRA
No.230 of 2022, filed by the senior citizen against the order Annexure P-9
and also the order Annexure P-8 as passed by the trial Court on 12.09.2022
and thereby, setting-aside the order Annexure P-9 with the observation that
order Annexure P-8 had merged in the said order (Annexure P-9). Vide the
order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-8), the trial Court had directed that the
residence rights of the applicant, i.e the daughter-in-law, in the matrimonial
house would remain intact and then, on 14.09.2022, the afore-said Court
had passed order Annexure P-9 to the effect that the daughter-in-law would
reside on the first floor portion of the subject property, leaving the ground
floor portion to be exclusively used by the senior citizen and she (daughter-
in-law) would also be at liberty to occupy the second floor portion thereof,
subject to the payment of Rs.20,000/- to the senior citizen as the monthly
maintenance allowance.
6. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants in
LPA No.764 of 2024 and the petitioner in CR No.1431 of 2024, learned
Senior counsel for respondent No.3 in LPA No.764 of 2024 and the
respondents in CR No.1431 of 2024 as well as learned State counsel for
5 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -6-
respondents No.1 and 2 in LPA No.764 of 2024 and have also perused the
files/record carefully.
7. Now, we would be taking up each of both the cases separately
for the discussion on the merits thereof and would be taking up the Civil
Revision first for this purpose.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-daughter-in-law has
contended that the daughter-in-law has been residing/staying in the subject
property since her marriage to the son of the senior citizen and thus, the
same constitutes her shared household and hence, she has got the right to
reside therein and though initially, the trial Court had correctly passed the
order Annexure P-8 on 12.09.2022 in the complaint (Annexure P-7) filed
by her under the D.V. Act, for protecting her above-referred right but vide
the order Annexure P-9 as handed down on 14.09.2022, the trial Court had
wrongly directed her (daughter-in-law) to vacate the ground floor portion
of the subject property and shift to its first floor portion and to occupy the
second floor portion on the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month to the senior
citizen for her maintenance and vide the judgment dated 31.10.2024, the
appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the appeal, filed by the daughter
-in-law and has allowed the appeal, as preferred by the senior citizen and
therefore, the afore-said judgment deserves to be set-aside.
9. However, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has
argued that the daughter-in-law has instituted the above-referred complaint
under the D.V. Act on 18.08.2022, after the filing of the afore-mentioned
6 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -7-
application by the senior citizen (mother-in-law) under the Senior Citizens
Act on 09.03.2022 and also a complaint under the D.V. Act on 19.04.2022,
against her son and daughter-in-law and moreover, though the eviction
order has been passed against both of them (son and daughter-in-law) but
the daughter-in-law has not impleaded the son, i.e her husband, as a party
in complaint Annexure P-7 moved by her under the D.V. Act and it shows
that the daughter-in-law is not having any marital discord with her husband
(son) and rather, they have been residing together and all these facts lead to
an irresistible conclusion to the effect that the above-said complaint has
been filed by the daughter-in-law as a counter-blast to the afore-mentioned
application and the complaint, as preferred by the senior citizen, much
earlier and to add to it, orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 had been passed by
the trial Court even without waiting for the submission of the Reply by the
senior citizen and other respondents arrayed in complaint Annexure P-7
and hence, the impugned judgment is legally sustainable.
10. There is no denial to the fact that it was the senior citizen
(mother-in-law), who had moved the application under the Senior Citizens
Act and also the complaint under the D.V. Act, prior to the filing of the
complaint (Annexure P-7) by the daughter-in-law under the D.V. Act. It
also goes undisputed between the parties that the son is having a luxury
apartment in Noida. Explicitly, the eviction order has been passed against
the daughter-in-law and the son as well. However, a bare perusal of the
complaint Annexure P-7 reveals that the daughter-in-law has not arrayed
her husband, i.e the son of the senior citizen, as a party therein and this
7 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -8-
fact, in itself, shows that the son and daughter-in-law are not having any
matrimonial discord and there is nothing on the record/file to suggest that
they intend to reside separately from each other. Further, it has specifically
been mentioned by the appellate Court in paras No.3 & 13 of the impugned
judgment that though respondents No.1 to 3 had put in appearance but they
had yet to file their Reply to the petition, i.e the complaint under the D.V.
Act and the trial Court did not even wait to seek their Reply and respondent
No.4 had also remained unserved till the orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 had
been passed. It is also essential to mention here that the appellate Court has
categorically observed in para No.10 in its judgment that the fact that the
mother-in-law had filed the petition before the District Magistrate on
09.03.2022 whereas the daughter-in-law moved the petition under the D.V.
Act on 18.08.2022, i.e many months after the filing of the petition by the
mother-in-law, raised the presumption that till the filing of the petition on
18.08.2022, the daughter-in-law did not have any dispute with the senior
citizen or any other respondent for that matter and she had moved the
complaint to counter the petition filed by the mother-in-law. From these
observations, it becomes explicit that the impugned judgment (Annexure
P-15) has been passed by the appellate Court after properly considering and
evaluating the rival contentions of both the parties and it being so, no fault
can be found with the same.
11. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants-son and daughter-
in-law, has contended that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act cannot
8 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -9-
be outstretched to the extent of construing that the same confer the power
upon the Competent Authority to pass an order of eviction while granting
the relief to the parents/senior citizens nor the grant of such relief had ever
been contemplated by the Legislature at the time of enacting the Statute
(ibid) and rather, Clauses 1 to 3 of the Action-Plans, as prescribed/enforced
by the States of Punjab and Haryana in pursuance of the mandate of this
Act, have already been held to be unconstitutional and have, therefore,
been struck down by this Court in CWP No.4744 of 2018 titled as 'Simrat
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others' (decided on 23.01.2020) and
hence, the eviction order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-1), is liable to be
quashed on this count alone. In support of these contentions, he has also
placed reliance upon the verdicts rendered by this Court in LPA No.1588
of 2014 titled as 'Major Harmohinder Singh (Retd.) Vs. State of Punjab
and others' (decided on 14.10.2014) and CWP No.13505 of 2021 titled as
'Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others' (decided on
26.07.2021).
12. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the senior citizen has
argued that the parents/senior citizens deserve to live peacefully in the dusk
years of their lives and the Senior Citizens Act has been legislated to
ensure the same for them and thus, the order regarding the eviction of the
children or other persons, who may be entitled to inherit the legacy from
them (parents/senior citizens), from the property, is well within the ambit
and frame-work of the Act (ibid) and therefore, the order Annexure P-1,
passed by the District Magistrate, is perfectly legal and logical. To buttress
9 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -10-
his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment handed down by the Apex
Court in S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and others,
(2021) 15 SCC 730.
13. Before discussing and evaluating the merits of the present
intra-Court appeal, it would be relevant to refer to the statutory provision,
i.e Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act, wherein the genesis of the
requirement of drafting/prescribing and enforcing the Action-Plan by the
concerned State Government, lies and the same reads as under:-
"22. Authorities who may be specified for
implementing the provisions of this Act. --
(1) The State Government may, confer such powers
and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as
may be necessary, to ensure that the provisions of this
Act are properly carried out and the District
Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to
him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers, and
perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or
imposed and the local limits within which such
powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as
may be prescribed.
(2) The State Government shall prescribe a
comprehensive action plan for providing protection of
life and property of senior citizens."
This provision makes it explicit that the Legislature requires
the State Government concerned to prescribe a comprehensive Action-Plan
for providing protection to the life and property of the Senior Citizens and
it also envisages the conferring of the powers and imposition of the duties
10 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -11-
upon the District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the Act (ibid)
are properly carried out/implemented.
14. Though, learned Single Judge has held in Simrat Randhawa
(supra) that Clauses 1 to 3 of the Action-Plans, as prescribed by the States
of Punjab and Haryana, are unconstitutional but however, this verdict is of
no avail to the son and daughter-in-law in view of the observations made
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (supra) to the effect that
"the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority
to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in
other words, would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to
maintenance and protection. However, the remedy can be granted only
after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute". In the light of these
observations, it becomes clear that the Competent Authority under the
Senior Citizens Act, can order the eviction if it is so necessary to ensure the
maintenance and protection of the senior citizens or parents, although such
relief is to be granted after considering the competing claims in the dispute.
The aspect of fulfilment of the above-said condition qua consideration and
appreciation of the rival claims of the senior citizen on one hand and the
daughter-in-law and the son on the other hand, will be looked into and
discussed in the later part of this judgment. The judgments rendered by this
Court in Major Harmohinder Singh (Retd) (supra) and Sudershan Kumar
(supra) are of no help to the son and daughter-in-law in view of the afore-
cited observations as made by the Apex Court in S. Vanitha (supra).
11 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -12-
15. Learned Senior counsel for the son and daughter-in-law has,
then, contended that the District Magistrate could not have passed the order
Annexure P-1 regarding the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from
the subject property and rather, only the Maintenance Tribunal could have
ordered so and therefore, the order Annexure P-1 is not sustainable on this
score also. To strengthen his contention, he has referred to the judgments
passed by this Court in CWP No.14020 of 2022 titled as 'Prithvi Singh
Saini Vs. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Hisar and others' (decided on
25.01.2024); LPA No.257 of 2024 titled as 'Naresh Kumar and another
Vs. The Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and others' (decided on 06.02.2024) and CWP
No.3383 of 2019 titled as 'Sarika Rani Vs. District Magistrate-cum-
Appellate Tribunal and another' (decided on 12.02.2024).
16. However, it is worth-while to mention here that in Naresh
Kumar and another (supra) (LPA No.257 of 2024), the senior citizen, who
had been arrayed as respondent No.3 therein, had moved an application
before the District Magistrate, Gurugram under the Senior Citizens Act for
seeking the eviction of the appellants, i.e his son and daughter-in-law, from
the house owned by him and the District Magistrate allowed the same vide
the order dated 04.08.2021 and directed the appellants therein to vacate the
house in question. The appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition to assail the
above-mentioned eviction order but it was dismissed and then, they filed
the said LPA No.257 wherein the sole issue, as raised and pressed by their
(appellants') counsel for adjudication, has been specified as under:-
12 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -13-
"9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
in the instant appeal he presses only one of issues
raised before the learned Single Judge which is that
on an application filed by a senior citizen under
Section 23(2) of the Senior Citizens Act seeking
therein possession of the property owned by him there
is no provision under the Senior Citizens Act which
gives any power to the Magistrate/Tribunal to order
eviction of the occupant from the senior citizen's
property. In the State of Haryana such power had
been given to the Magistrate through The Haryana
Action Plan-2015 which has been held to be
unconstitutional by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Simrat Randhawa's case (supra). In the
intra court appeal filed by the State in Simrat
Randhawa's case (supra) there being no interim stay,
the learned Single Judge, through the impugned
judgment has erred to uphold the appellants' eviction
from the property in question."
and the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the afore-described issue and
dismissed the said LPA, by making the following observations:-
"17. In the light of the above, in the facts of the
present case, in spite of there being the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in Simrat Randhawa's case
(supra) declaring the Haryana Action Plan-2015 to
be unconstitutional, the learned Single Judge is found
to have committed no error to hold that the Tribunal/
Magistrate had the power to order the appellants'
eviction from respondent No.1's house and that such
power has been rightly exercised to ensure the
maintenance and protection of respondent No.1."
13 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -14-
17. The above-quoted verdict as rendered in LPA No.257 of 2024,
was further challenged by the appellants by way of filing the Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).15661/2024 titled as "Naresh Kumar and
another Versus Sohan Lal" which has been disposed of, by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court on 02.08.2024 while observing as under:-
"Delay in refiling is condoned.
We are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
On the request of learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, sixty days' time is granted to the
petitioners to vacate from the scheduled premises
subject to the petitioners filing an affidavit of
undertaking before this Court to the effect:
(1) that they will vacate from the premises within a
period of sixty days from today;
(2) that during the said period of their stay in the
premises, they shall not create any third party rights
in respect of the said premises;
(3) that they shall not damage the scheduled
premises;
(4) that they shall not cause any acrimony with the
respondent-father until they vacate from the premises.
The aforesaid affidavit of undertaking on behalf
of the petitioners shall be filed within a period of two
weeks from today.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of."
Thus, the judgment as handed down by the Co-ordinate Bench
in Naresh Kumar and another (supra) (LPA No.257), which itself did not
14 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -15-
strengthen the contention of the son and daughter-in-law, has been upheld
by the Apex Court and hence, they could not have banked upon the same.
In such circumstances, the judgments passed by this Court in Prithvi Singh
Saini (supra) and Sarika Rani (supra) would also be of no avail to them.
18. Learned Senior counsel for the son and daughter-in-law has
also contended that the son and the daughter-in-law have never ill-treated
the senior citizen nor have ever misbehaved with her and rather, she (senior
citizen) is having sufficient funds and income to maintain herself and
moreover, she has not been thrown out of the subject property by the son
and daughter-in-law as alleged by her and in fact, she has left the same out
of her own sweet will/ volition and even otherwise, the daughter-in-law has
been residing in the subject property with the son of the senior citizen since
their marriage and thus, the same being her shared household, she has the
right to reside in it in view of the protection provided to her under the D.V.
Act but however, her afore-referred right has not been considered while
passing the eviction order Annexure P-1 and therefore, this order is bad in
the eyes of law. To fortify his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (supra) and
Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90 and the Co-ordinate
Bench in LPA No.135 of 2024 titled as 'Anil Kumar Vs. Jagdish Rai and
others' (decided on 18.01.2024).
19. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the senior
citizen has argued that the son and daughter-in-law have been ill-treating
the senior citizen and they have also mis-utilized her movable assets, i.e the
15 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -16-
amounts lying in her bank and DEMAT accounts and her credit and debit
cards, by taking undue advantage of her old age and the faith, as reposed by
her (senior citizen) in them and moreover, the son of the senior citizen,
i.e the husband of the daughter-in-law, owns a ready to move-in luxury
apartment, in Noida and thus, on her eviction from the subject property, the
daughter-in-law would still be having an accommodation to reside in and it
being so, the eviction order (Annexure P-1) is a justified one.
20. As discussed earlier, the subject property belongs to the senior
citizen by virtue of the Conveyance-Deed dated 15.12.1997. Annexure P-9
is the copy of the Reply, as submitted by the son and daughter-in-law, to
the application (Annexure P-8) filed by the senior citizen under the Senior
Citizens Act and in paras No.8 and 9 (Para-wise Reply) therein, they
themselves have given the detail of the amounts transferred from the bank
account of the senior citizen to the bank account of the son through RTGS
and cheques. Though the son and daughter-in-law have claimed that these
amounts had been gifted to the son by the senior citizen but the fact
remains that the senior citizen has categorically alleged in her application
as well as the Re-joinder that the son and daughter-in-law had siphoned-off
a huge amount from her bank account(s) and had mis-utilized her debit and
credit cards and had also sold the equity shares and had, thus, cheated her.
To add to it, in para No.7 in her Re-joinder to the above-said Reply
(Preliminary Submissions), the senior citizen has specifically mentioned
that on 19.04.2022, she had filed a complaint against her son and daughter-
in-law under the D.V. Act and in para No.2 thereof and in para No.3 (Reply
16 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -17-
to the brief facts of the case) in the Re-joinder, she (senior citizen) has
pleaded that the son and daughter-in-law had quarrelled with the tenants on
the first and second floor portions of the subject property several times and
due to the constant nuisance created by them, the tenants had left the afore-
mentioned rented portions in January and April 2022 and resultantly, she
had been deprived of her rental income. The son and daughter-in-law have
not placed any material on the file/record to show that the tenants are still
occupying the said portions.
21. In the normal course of events, no mother would like to have
strained relations with her children if they (children) are dutiful to her and
respect her. Rather, in the twilight years of life, every parent would make
the best possible endeavours to buy peace with his/her children. The very
factum of the senior citizen having resorted to moving the complaint to the
police and approaching the Court under the D.V. Act, in itself, does suffice
to lead to the inference that the son and daughter-in-law were not having
cordial relations with her and she was being deprived of the right to reside
in the subject property peacefully and with her dignity and self-esteem
intact. The observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in Anil Kumar
(supra) do not further the cause of the son and daughter-in-law because in
the above-noted case, the father had sought the cancellation of the transfer-
deed executed by him in favour of his son qua a shop whereas it is not so in
the present case. Rather, in the afore-said case, the application as filed by
the father had, initially, been rejected but the appeal moved by him, was
accepted and then, the son had filed the Civil Writ Petition against the
17 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -18-
order of the Appellate Tribunal which came to be dismissed and the said
LPA, preferred by him (son), had also been dismissed.
22. As regards the claim of the daughter-in-law to reside in the
subject property on the ground that the same is her shared household, it is
again pertinent to point it out here that there is nothing on the file to come
to the conclusion that she and her husband, i.e the son of the senior citizen,
have not been residing together or they do not intend to stay under one roof
and rather, they themselves have claimed that they have been residing in
the subject property since their marriage. Concededly, the son owns/has a
luxury apartment in Noida, meaning thereby that he and the daughter-in-
law are having an alternative accommodation to reside therein, after their
eviction from the subject property as discussed above.
23. The observations, as made by the Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi
(supra), are of no help to the daughter-in-law to substantiate her above-
claimed right as the facts and circumstances of the afore-quoted case are
distinguishable from those of the instant one because in the above-cited
case, the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act had not been initiated
and the daughter-in-law had lost her husband in a road accident soon after
their marriage whereas in the present case, the senior citizen preferred the
application under the Senior Citizens Act even prior to the filing of the
complaint by the daughter-in-law under the D.V. Act, as mentioned earlier.
24. Then, the verdict handed down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S. Vanitha (supra), is also of no avail to the daughter-in-law to challenge
the eviction order because in the afore-noted case, the daughter-in-law was
18 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -19-
having marital discord with the son of the senior citizens and the son had
instituted divorce proceedings against her and she (daughter-in-law) had
also filed a case against her husband and mother-in-law with the allegations
of dowry harassment and had claimed the maintenance allowance from her
husband and subsequently, the senior citizens had instituted the application
under the Senior Citizens Act and therefore, the Apex Court had set-aside
the eviction order passed against the daughter-in-law and had granted her
one year's period to pursue her remedies under the D.V. Act whereas in the
instant case, the senior citizen had moved the application under the Senior
Citizens Act on 09.03.2022 and had also filed a complaint against her son
and the daughter-in-law under the D.V. Act on 19.04.2022 and the son and
daughter-in-law had submitted their Reply to the said application under the
Senior Citizens Act on 09.05.2022 and subsequent thereto, the daughter-in-
law had preferred the complaint under the D.V. Act on 18.08.2022 and as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the son and daughter-in-law do not
seem to be having any marital discord between them and they had filed the
above-said Reply jointly and to add to it, the daughter-in-law has not even
arrayed her husband, i.e the son of the senior citizen, as a party in the afore-
referred complaint as moved by her under the D.V. Act and admittedly, the
son owns a luxury apartment in Noida and therefore, he and the daughter-
in-law would not be rendered homeless on their eviction from the subject
property. Then, so far as the fulfilment of the condition regarding adverting
to the rival claims of the parties while granting the relief of eviction, as
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and pointed out in the earlier part of
19 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148643-DB
LPA No.764 of 2024 (O&M) and
one connected case -20-
this judgment, is concerned, the same stands duly fulfilled/complied with in
view of the fact that in the judgment dated 31.01.2024, as impugned in CR
No.1431, the appellate Court has specifically discussed and adjudicated the
claim of the daughter-in-law qua the shared household and this judgment
has been tested on the touchstone of the settled norms of legality and has
been upheld by us while considering and evaluating the contentions, raised
by learned Senior counsel for both the parties therein (Civil Revision).
25. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the judgment handed down by learned Single Judge
on 19.10.2023, as assailed in LPA No.764 of 2024 and also the judgment
rendered by the appellate Court and challenged in CR No.1431 of 2024, do
not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to
warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the Letters Patent
Appeal as well as the Civil Revision in hand, being sans any merit, stand
dismissed accordingly. However, keeping in view the undisputed fact that
the grandson of the senior citizen, i.e the son of the son and daughter-in-
law, is presently studying in Class-XII, they (son and daughter-in-law) are
granted the time up to 31.03.2025 to vacate the subject property, so that the
studies of their son may not be adversely affected.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
November 14, 2024
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
20 of 20
