[Senior Citizens Act] What Are The Factors Appellate Authority Needs To Consider While Dealing With Application Seeking Stay On Eviction Order? Delhi High Court Answers

The Delhi High Court has set out the various factors that are necessary to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 while dealing with an application seeking stay in a pending appeal against an eviction order.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed that in such cases, the appellate authority would have to consider the nature of evidence that was placed before the Tribunal which constrained it to pass an eviction order.

The court added that if the appellate authority finds that the eviction order was predicated upon cogent and reliable material showing harassment and ill-treatment towards senior citizens, such an order may be permitted to run, resulting in removal of the offending parties from the premises till the appeal is decided.

"While in the case of ordinary civil litigation, the issue of grant of stay is governed by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss with courts bearing in mind the need to preserve the rights of parties inter se during the pendency of proceedings, the primordial consideration in proceedings under the 2007 Act is the necessity to protect and secure the life and property of the complainant senior citizens," Justice Varma said.

Noting that at such a stage the authorities must primarily consider securing the physical and mental well-being as well as security of the senior citizens, the court observed that a prayer for the status quo must not be granted as a matter of course in such situations.

"This since the continuance of the offending parties in the premises may itself cause irreparable damage and perpetuate the mental and physical torture which the senior citizens may have suffered in the past and had compelled them to initiate proceedings under the 2007 Act," it said.

Furthermore, the court also observed that the appellate authority under the Act is obliged to bear in mind that the order of eviction would have been passed after due opportunity of hearing to parties by the Tribunal.

"The Court observes that at the interim stage and where the appellate authority comes to the prima facie conclusion that the order of the Tribunal is not shown to suffer from a patent or manifest error or where the ultimate direction of eviction is not ex facie untenable, the ends of justice may merit parties being required to separate and await the final outcome of the appeal," Justice Varma said.

The court added, "Ultimately it would be the facts of each case which would merit examination and evaluation in order to guide the exercise of the power to stay as conferred upon the appellate authority. All that the Court seeks to emphasize is that the power to grant interim stay is not to be exercised mechanically or as a matter of rote."

It further said the mere fact that appeal was entertained would not warrant the Tribunal's order to be placed in abeyance, adding that it would be the facts of each case which the appellate authority would have to consider to ascertain if any interim protection is to be given to the parties against whom allegations are levelled by the senior citizens.

The power to grant interim relief would ultimately have to be left to the sound and judicious discretion of the appellate authority, the court said.

The observations have been made by Justice Varma in an order dismissing the petition filed by the son-in-law of a senior citizen against an order dated 23 August 2022 passed by a Divisional Commissioner rejecting his application seeking stay in an appeal preferred by him.

"Bearing in mind the material which has been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner...," said the court.

The appeal was filed challenging an order passed by the District Magistrate in November 2021. The order was based on serious allegations of harassment and ill-treatment which were found to be duly established and proved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his report. The District Magistrate had then proceeded to frame directions for the eviction of the petitioner son-in-law and the other parties.

While dismissing the plea, the court noted that the conclusions of harassment and ill treatment recorded by the SDM forming the basis for the order passed by the Tribunal were neither questioned nor challenged by the petitioner.

"In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition shall consequently stand dismissed," the court ordered.

Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944

Click Here To Read Order