The Delhi High Court has upheld rules that enable senior citizens and elderly parents to seek the removal of children or other legal heirs from property owned by them when they face neglect or ill-treatment.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected a challenge to Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
The Court held that the provision is supported by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and falls within the rule-making authority granted to the government.
Sections 22 and 32 of the Act respectively empower the government to prescribe measures for protecting the life and property of senior citizens and to frame rules for implementing the legislation.
The Bench observed that the disputed rule was intended to provide a mechanism for senior citizens and parents to obtain relief when they suffer because of non-maintenance or ill-treatment.
The ruling came in a petition filed by Punam, who challenged an eviction order issued in favour of her mother-in-law.
Punam had argued that the 2007 Act itself did not specifically authorise eviction proceedings and that the Delhi government’s rules therefore went beyond the powers granted under the legislation. She also questioned the rules on constitutional grounds and relied on protections available to women seeking residence in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
According to the case record, Punam married the senior citizen’s son in 1996 and the couple had two children. Following matrimonial disputes, she initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and sought protection of her residence in her mother-in-law’s property.
Her mother-in-law later approached the authorities seeking Punam’s eviction under the 2009 Rules.
The District Magistrate initially rejected the request in February 2021. On appeal, however, the Divisional Commissioner reversed that decision in July 2022 and ordered Punam to vacate the premises.
The High Court declined to interfere with that decision.
The Bench noted that Punam was working as a postgraduate teacher, had a substantial income and also had another house. Against that backdrop, the Court held that her claim to reside in the disputed property could not be treated as an unrestricted right.
The judges said her claim also had to be weighed against her mother-in-law’s right to live peacefully in her own property.
While examining the challenge to the rules, the Court ultimately held that the provisions permitting such action were legally traceable to the 2007 Act.
The challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules was consequently dismissed, leaving the eviction order in favour of the senior citizen intact.