The High Court of Delhi has upheld an eviction order against a daughter-in-law and her son from a property owned by her senior citizen in-laws. The Court observed that while a daughter-in-law has a statutory right of residence in a “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act, this right does not translate into a proprietary interest and must be balanced against the senior citizens’ right to lead a life of dignity and peace.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Smt. Ritu Taneja and her son Khushaal Taneja, challenged an order dated August 28, 2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The impugned order directed them to vacate property bearing no. B-3/81, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Mr. Om Prakash Taneja and Mrs. Savitri Taneja), who are the senior citizen in-laws of Petitioner No. 1.
Following the demise of Petitioner No. 1’s husband, Late Mr. Pankaj Taneja, in February 2020, acrimonious disputes arose within the family. The senior citizens filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) and the Delhi Rules of 2009, alleging ill-treatment and seeking eviction.
Initially, the Maintenance Tribunal (District Magistrate) ordered the petitioners to vacate only the ground floor. However, on appeal, the Divisional Commissioner ordered their eviction from the entire premises, noting that the relationship had deteriorated to the point where continued cohabitation was “wholly untenable.”
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners, represented by Ms. Mouli Bhattacharjee, argued that the subject property was a “shared household” and that they had no financial support from the respondents despite the latter’s sound financial condition. They claimed the property was acquired from ancestral business funds and asserted rights over LIC policies and financial instruments of the deceased husband. Petitioner No. 1 also denied allegations of ill-treatment, claiming she had cared for her mother-in-law.
Per contra, Ms. Archana Gaur, appearing for the senior citizens, submitted that the respondents were the absolute owners of the self-acquired property. They alleged continuous harassment and mental distress caused by the petitioners. It was further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is a gainfully employed government teacher earning over ₹1 lakh monthly and possesses alternative accommodation at Khirki Extension. The respondents expressed willingness to hand over documents for the Khirki property and two plots in Faridabad upon vacation of the subject property.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act is beneficial legislation intended to ensure aged parents can lead a life of dignity and autonomy.
Jurisdictional Limits The Court noted that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are summary in nature and cannot be used to determine complex civil disputes involving inheritance or ancestral property claims. The judgment stated:
“It is well settled that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be transmuted into a forum for the determination of intricate civil disputes pertaining to ownership, co-ownership, inheritance, or claims arising out of alleged ancestral property.”
Balancing Competing Rights Addressing the “shared household” claim, the Court cited the Supreme Court decisions in S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner and Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja. The Court observed:
“The right of residence is a protective right and not a proprietary one, and cannot be invoked to defeat the legitimate claim of senior citizens to secure peaceful enjoyment of their property. In circumstances where cohabitation has become wholly unworkable, the balance must tilt in favour of the senior citizens.”
The Court specifically highlighted that Petitioner No. 1 is not a “destitute or vulnerable individual” but a financially independent government employee. The Court found that the dispute was primarily centered around competing proprietary claims rather than a lack of shelter.
The Decision
The High Court found no “patent illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity” in the Divisional Commissioner’s order. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had arrived at a categorical finding that the relationship was “deeply strained,” making continued cohabitation impossible.
Directions:
- The respondents (in-laws) are directed to deposit the original papers of the alternate accommodation (Khirki Extension) and the Faridabad plots with the Divisional Commissioner within 30 days.
- The petitioners are directed to vacate the subject property within 45 days of the deposit of documents.
- Neither party shall create any third-party rights in the vacated property or the property being handed over to the petitioners without the permission of a competent court.
The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Ritu Taneja & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Case No.: W.P.(C) 12721/2023 and CM APPL. 25845/2026
- Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
- Date: May 08, 2026
