Senior Citizen May Claim Right Of Exclusive Residence Even If 'Right' Or 'Interest' Is Lower Than An Exclusive Ownership Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may only be able to establish a "right" or "interest" in such property, even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right.

"Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act," Justice Yashwant Varma added.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the validity of an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner acting as the Appellate Authority under the Act, rejecting an application for stay made in a pending appeal instituted by the petitioner.

The Appellate Authority had while passing the impugned order taken note of the submission that as per a will executed in favor of the senior citizen, the suit property stood in her name.

The order further referred to a family settlement in respect of which the Appellate Authority had observed that the respondent had refused to accept that settlement and that issues pertaining to the same were pending trial before the competent Civil Court.

Assailing the order impugned, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petition, submitted that once the appeal had been entertained, it was imperative for the Divisional Commissioner to provide interim protection to the petitioner and place the order of eviction in abeyance since a refusal to do so would render the filing of the appeal itself otiose.

On the other hand, controverting the aforesaid submissions, the respondent no. 2 submitted that rights that may be claimed by competing parties in respect of property cannot be the determinative factor for the purposes of considering complaints under the 2007 Act.

"It is evident from the above, the principal objective of the Act is to make effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. These are senior citizens who are left to fend for themselves all alone in the dusk of their lives, have been exposed to years of emotional neglect and receive no financial or emotional support from their children and heirs. Therefore, Courts and authorities administering the provisions of the Act are obliged to confer paramount consideration on these issues," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the petitioner had moved out from the disputed property way back in 2006-2007 on account of breakdown of marital relations and that he then entered the subject property only pursuant to the settlement which was arrived at before the Mediation Centre.

"The Court bears in mind the serious allegations of abuse which were made by the senior citizen(s) against him and which were referred to by Mr. Vaccher as well as the public declaration of the two senior citizens having disowned their only son. There cannot possibly be more compelling evidence of bitterness, rancour and a complete loss of faith of the parents in their child," the Court said.

While the Court was of the view that the petitioner counsel addressed elaborate submissions relating to the rights in property which were claimed, it added that no submissions were made as to whether the petitioner had ever provided any emotional of financial support to his aged mother.

"The Court was not apprised of any support, financial or emotional, which may have been extended by the petitioner to the senior citizen in the intervening years. If that be the position, the desire of the senior citizen to spend her days in quietude free from emotional and mental stress must be respected and protected. Viewed in that backdrop, the Court finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned," the Court said.

The Court thus found no justification to grant any relief to the petitioner based on the settlement.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673

Click Here To Read Order