Delhi High Court - Orders
Meenakshi Singhal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 1 July, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9657/2022 & C.M. APPLN. 28782-28783/2022
MEENAKSHI SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Puja Jain and Mr. Deepak Jain,
Advocates, with Petitioner in person.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Advocate for R-1
& 2 (GNCTD).
Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate for R-3
with Ms. Savitri Singhal, in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.07.2022 CM APPL. 28783/2022 (under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for exemption from filing clear and original and dim copies of annexures, certified copies, inadequate margin spacing)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9657/2022 & CM APPL. 28782/2022 (under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking stay of operation of the impugned order)
4. The dispute in the present petition arises out of a family discord Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 1 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:26 between the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 - Smt. Savitri Singhal [mother-in- law of Petitioner] and Respondent No. 4 - Shri. Yogesh Kumar Singhal [husband of Petitioner]. Upon a complaint being filed by Petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Courts-05), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 24th May, 2022 restrained the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from her shared household bearing No. A-3/335, First Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi 110063 [hereinafter, "subject property"] except in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"Accordingly, respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from her shared household bearing No.A3/335, First Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-63 except in accordance with law. It is clarified that vide this order, petitioner has been granted only right to residence in the above household.
Be put up for completion of pleadings/appearance of respondent no.2 on 29.08.2022.
Let copy of this order be also provided to respondent no.2 alongwith summons."
5. On the other hand, Respondent No. 3, being a widowed senior citizen, invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [hereinafter, "the Act"] and obtained an eviction order dated 3rd June, 2022 [hereinafter, "impugned order"] in her favour against Respondent No. 4 as well as the Petitioner. In terms of the impugned order, Petitioner is required to vacate the premises in question within a period of thirty days from the impugned order, which is stated to expire on 2nd July, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 2 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:266. Assailing the impugned order, Petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 4 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December, 2016, before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The said appeal is stated to be listed for hearing on 11th August, 2022. Along with the afore-noted appeal, Petitioner has filed an application seeking stay of the impugned order, placing reliance on the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 24th May, 2022 granting protection.
7. Ms. Puja Jain, counsel for Petitioner, urges that the appeal is yet to be heard. In this situation since the period for vacating the subject property is expiring tomorrow, an urgent order of stay is imperative.
8. Ms. Jain places reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District and Ors.,1 wherein the Court took note of the rights accruing under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as well as the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The observations made by the Supreme Court on this issue reads as under:
"21.1. (...) a significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. 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 1 JT 2020 (12) SC 208.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 3 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:26
cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.
22. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the Civil Courts, under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. However, the over-riding 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. 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 S.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."
9. Additionally, attention of this Court has also been drawn on the inability of the Petitioner to maintain herself and her two minor children aged about nine years and two years. It is submitted that Petitioner is a homemaker and has no other alternative place of residence to reside with her two children.
10. Per contra, Respondent No. 3 personally addressed the Court and stressed that the Petitioner has been continuously harassing and torturing her, particularly after the death of her husband. Due to such unruly behaviour of Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 was constrained to take recourse to the legal remedy of eviction from the subject property.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 4 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:2611. Although these allegations are controverted by Ms. Jain, nevertheless, it clearly emerges that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 cannot live together harmoniously. When queried by the Court as to whether any property is in the actual possession of the Petitioner, the Counsel informs that she is currently residing on the first floor of the subject property, which is a complete unit in itself having one bedroom, one drawing room, bathroom and kitchen. Respondent No. 3 is in the possession of the ground floor thereof. Moreover, Respondent No. 4, who is a practicing lawyer, states that he has already arranged for an alternative accommodation in Rohini for the Petitioner and their children. Nevertheless, he assures the Court that he would endeavour to find another place of residence in case the same is not suitable to the Petitioner.
12. Considering the foregoing, the Court is inclined to protect Petitioner's interests in the shared household (being the subject property). However, such protection will only operate qua the first floor of the subject property, in which Petitioner is already residing. It is directed that the Petitioner shall not be evicted therefrom till the appeal against the impugned order is heard and decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi on 11th August, 2022.
13. Further, till such time an alternate accommodation is arranged by Respondent No. 4, and the Petitioner continues to reside on the first floor of the subject property, she is restrained from entering the ground floor or interfering with the possession of Respondent No. 3 in any manner whatsoever. Respondent No. 3 shall be free to access the terrace of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 5 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:26 subject property, which shall not be blocked by Petitioner.
14. It is clarified that any view expressed hereinabove shall not in any manner influence the Divisional Commissioner in deciding the above-stated appeal against the impugned order.
15. List before the Roster Bench on 14th September, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JULY 1, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9657/2022 Page 6 of 6 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:01.07.2022 21:48:26