Summary of this article
Delhi High Court stays seniors' eviction order against daughter-in-law under Senior Citizens Act.
It emphasises to harmonious construe both the Senior Citizens Act and the PWDV Act to protects both sides.
Tribunal must avoid orders ignoring other special statutes like PWDV Act.
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court ordered a stay on the eviction order of a daughter-in-law sought by senior citizens. The daughter-in-law (petitioner) approached the high court to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate (West), Delhi, and the Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Delhi), who passed the order in favour of seniors following the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
Per the petitioner, due to the order, she is “facing imminent threat of dispossession from her residential abode.” She alleged that the matter was not heard properly and that the rights of senior citizens must be understood in harmony with the rights of a daughter-in-law in the shared household.
Arguments
The counsel of the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without examining the controversy. Per the report by LawTrend, the cousel referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vanitha vs The Deputy Commissioner case, in which, the Supreme Court had said, “In the present case, Section 36 of the PWDV Act, 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that operates in a separate field.”
A non-obstante clause means a legal provision of overriding effect for that particular rule. So, in case of clashes, the rule that has a non-obstante clause overrides the other rules.
The counsel also brought notice to a separate order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in August 2022, in the petitioner’s favour under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, or PWDV Act. It read, “The respondents are restrained from entering the room of the shared household in which the petitioner is residing.”
Court Observation
The court heard the arguments and, taking into account the Supreme Court’s order, it noted: “The overriding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act, 2005.”
It further noted, “The PWDV Act, 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society.”
“In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act, 2005.”
The court observed, “The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act, 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislation have to be harmoniously construed.”
Thus, the right of a woman to secure a residence order cannot be defeated by securing an eviction order using a summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.
Court Order
The court then directed the respondents (senior citizens and their husband) to reply within three weeks and maintain the status quo regarding the title and possession of the property, and scheduled the next hearing for February 3, 2026.
