[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar And Anr vs The Addl. Distt Magistrate Patiala And ... on 15 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
210 Decided on : 15.12.2025
1. LPA-701-2018 (O&M)
BABU LAL SHARMA ...Appellant
Versus
SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS . . . Respondents
2. LPA-267-2019 (O&M)
MADHU BALA ...Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, YAMUNA
NAGAR AND ORS . . . Respondents
3. CWP-33528-2019 (O&M)
HARJINDER KAUR ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS . . . Respondents
4. CWP-36830-2019 (O&M)
JYOTI ... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . Respondents
5. LPA-1709-2018 (O&M)
ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR. ... Appellants
Versus
THE ADDL. DISTT MAGISTRATE PATIALA AND ORS. . . . Respondents
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Saini, Advocate
for the appellant
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 19:48:49 :::
2
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
in LPA-267-2019.
Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. G. S. Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-36830-2019.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. The issue involved in the present bunch of cases which includes
the appeals as well as the writ petitions (details of which have been
mentioned herein-above), have been filed by the senior citizen as well as by
the daughter-in-law as the case may be, is whether the senior citizens can
seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from the premises in question under the
Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (herein after
referred to as '2007 Act'). The said issue needs to be decided on the basis of
the provisions of the 2007 Act that as to whether the senior citizen can take
action against the daughter-in-law independently for her eviction.
2. The 2007 Act gives power to the senior citizen to claim the
benefit of eviction envisaged under 2007 Act against their children and also
against their relatives.
The definition of the "children" as well as the "relative" under
2007 Act is provided under Section 2 (a) and 2 (g) respectively, which is as
under:-
""children" includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-
daughter but does not include a minor.
2 of 7
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
"relative" means any legal heir of the childless senior citizen
who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his
property after his death "
3. A bare perusal of the above would show that in the definition of
the children, the daughter-in-law has not been included; even, the definition
of the relatives provides for the persons who will inherit the property of the
senior citizens after their death.
4. Though, as per the settled principle of law, the seeking of
eviction from the property belonging to the senior citizens is envisaged
under 2007 Act but the same can only be claimed against the children or the
relatives and the same cannot be enforced outside the purview of the said
definitions including the strangers.
5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.3822 of 2020 titled "Smt. S. Vanitha Vs.The Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District and ors.", decided on 15.12.2020, has described
the rights of a daughter-in-law to reside in the matrimonial house and the
courts have been directed to balance the rights of the senior citizens with
daughter-in-law. Once, under the Protection of Women from Domestice
Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'PWDV Act, 2005'), a right
has been given to the daughter-in-law to continue to occupy the matrimonial
house, probably, keeping in view the provisions of the PWDV Act, 2005,
while enacting 2007 Act, the daughter-in-law has not been included in the
definition of children so as to seek remedy against her under 2007 Act. The
revelant paragraph of the judgment passed in S. Vanitha 's case (Surpa) is as
under:-
"The above extract indicates that a significant object of the
3 of 7
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to
secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside
in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not
she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the
Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect
in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a
woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of
the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which
the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter
legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is
intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy
of their PART E 30 children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of
the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory
interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously
construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence
order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the
simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting
the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007."
6. Not only this, the senior citizens cannot seek eviction against a
stranger under 2007 Act who is occupying their premises, as remedy to seek
such eviction is by filing of a civil suit or under the Rent act as the case may
be. Further, even qua the daughter-in-law, the remedy of eviction is not
available under 2007 Act , the same will only be a civil Suit for eviction.
7. Keeping in view the said settled principle of law noticed herein
above, the cases which have been placed before this Court in the present
bunch are being decided.
4 of 7
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
8. With regard to the LPA-701-2018, which has been filed by
the senior citizens against the order of dismissal of the writ petition passed by
the learned Single Judge, as the same was filed against the strangers.
9. The strangers is not covered by the 2007 Act, in any
circumstances as no provisions which gives jurisdiction to the senior citizens
to seek eviction under 2007 Act has been brought to the notice of this Court.
Further, learned Single Judge has appreciated the said fact in accordance
with the provisions of the 2007 Act and the learned counsel for the appellants
has not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge, that the strangers cannot be brought within the purview of the
2007 Act so as to seek his eviction, is covered by 2007 Act.
10. Hence, once under provisions of the 2007 Act any right has
been shown by the learned counsel for the appellants that the senior
citizens can seek eviction of a stranger coupled with the fact that the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge have not been proved to be perverse
either on the facts or the law, the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs
no interference, hence, the said LPA-701-2018 is accordingly dismissed.
11. With regard to the LPA No. 267 of 2019 as well as CWP No.
36830 of 2019 which has been filed by the daughter-in-law wherein, the
eviction has been ordered, it may be noticed that the said orders have been
passed without appreciating the provisions of 2007 Act especially the
definition of "children" which does not include daughter-in-law as already
discussed in the preceding paragraph No. 3 of this Order.
12. Learned counsel for the senior citizens has not been able to show
as to what provisions entitles them to seek eviction of their daughter-in-law
from the premises owned by them under 2007 Act.
5 of 7
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
13. Even the orders passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction
under 2007 Act, as well as the learned single Judge, in LPA No. 267 of 2019
as well as CWP No. 36830 of 2019 are not in conformity with the provisions
of the 2007 Act to hold that the daughter-in-law is also amenable to the
eviction under 2007 Act on a plea raised by a senior citizen.
14. That being so, the LPA No. 267 of 2019 as well as CWP No.
36830 of 2019 are allowed. The orders passed by the authorities as well as
the learned Single Judge, being perverse to the provisions of the 2007 Act
are set-aside. Liberty is given to the senior citizens to avail appropriate
remedy by filing civil suit in case, the eviction of daughter-in-law is still
sought by the senior citizens.
15. With regard to the CWP No. 33528 of 2019 and LPA-1709
of 2018 where senior citizens have not been granted the benefit of eviction
qua the daughter-in-law by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007
Act as well as learned Single Judge, they have approached this Court by
availing remedy of appeal and writ petition, keeping in view the detailed
discussion, findings already recorded in the preceding paragraphs that the
said remedy of eviction against the daughter -in-law is not available under
the 2007 Act, the orders passed by the authorities concerned as well as by
the learned Single Judge, denying the said relief to the senior citizens under
the 2007 Act needs no interference at the hands of this Court and the order
passed by the authorities and learned Single Judge denying the benefit to
senior citizens qua the eviction of the daughter in law from the premises
owned by them are upheld and CWP No. 33528 of 2019 and LPA-1709 of
2018 are accordingly dismissed.
16. However, the senior citizens will be at liberty to seek remedy
6 of 7
LPA-701-2018 (O&M) and
connected cases
available to them under law by filing a civil suit, in case they still intent to
evict the daughter-in-law from the premises in question.
17. The present bunch of the petitions as well as appeals are
disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
18. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
19. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case(s).
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
JUDGE
15.12.2025
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
