Important Judgment of Reported Today on Eviction of children who do not maintain their parenys (1st June, 2019) Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Sat, Jun 01, 2019, at ,08:41 PM Title of the Case – Evict Children who do not maintain their Parents Name of the case – Aarshya Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and ors, W>P. © 347/2018, CM Nos. 1417/2018 Date of Judgment – 30th May, 2019 Judges: Chief Justice of Delhi Rajendra Menon and Justice V. Kameswar Subject and sections involved – Rule 22 (3) and 22 (4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016, Parent Act, The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Constitution of India. Issue: 1. Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby quash the Rule 22(3) and 22(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 for being ultra-vires the Parent Act and the Constitution of India, 1950 2. Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby set aside the Order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the Ld. Division Commissioner in Appeal bearing No. PA/Div. Comm./Appeal No. 08/2017/Sec16 to the extent it curtails the right of the Petitioners to raise preliminary issues/legal defences; 3. Issue a Writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate Writ and thereby quash the impugned show cause notice dated 14.12.2017, issued by the Ld. DM in furtherance to the Impugned Order. Fact of the Case: · The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted on 29th December, 2007 with aim of providing more effective mechanism for providing maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. · Vide a notification dated 30th June, 2009, respondent no.1 in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act notified Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and a separate Comprehensive Action Plan was also framed under Section 32(2)(f) of the Act. The said Plan, through Rule 22 (1) and (2), cast a duty on concerned police officials to prepare a list of senior citizens in their area, regularly visit senior citizens and to promptly attend to their complaints. Therefore, by virtue of the said Action Plan an effective channel for communication between senior citizens and police officials was provided. It is however to be noted that under the said Action Plan there was no specific provision for any remedy of eviction. · It is stated that the petitioners claiming to be coparceners in Kuldip Singh and Sons, HUF have already instituted CS(OS) 2223/2013, a Suit for Partition of all family properties and businesses including their present residential house. Respondent no.4 is grandfather of the petitioners and father of respondent no.5. · In response to the said Suit for Partition, respondent no.4 is stated to have filed a writ petition seeking remedies under the aforesaid Action Plan as also eviction of the present petitioners from their current residential house. The said writ petition was however withdrawn. Despite efforts, disputes between the parties could not be resolved amicably. · On 19th December, 2016 respondent no.1 is stated to have amended the Comprehensive Action Plan, thereby incorporating a summary procedure for eviction of a senior citizen‟s son / daughter / legal heir from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. The Rules were further amended on 28th July, 2017 to expand the scope of the term “Property” under the said Rules. Resultantly, the remedy of eviction was extended to “property of any kind whether moveable or immoveable, ancestral or selfacquired, tangible and intangible and include rights or interests in such property” as opposed to only self-acquired property. · Pursuant to the said amendment respondent no.4 instituted a complaint before the learned District Magistrate seeking eviction of respondent no.5. Vide order dated 26th September, 2017, the said complaint was however dismissed, holding that the said complaint seemed to be for a division of several coparcenary / joint properties and a similar matter was already pending before this court wherein, orders were passed for the maintenance of status quo with respect to possession and title in respect of the said properties. The said order was challenged by respondent no.4 before the Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 28th November, 2017 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate for a decision on merits. · It is to be noted that while remanding the matter back to the District Magistrate, the Divisional Commissioner directed that “……counsels on both sides not to bring in any technical points pertaining to the Act to unnecessary delay the proceedings”. The petitioners herein and respondent no.5 were therefore restrained from raising preliminary issues regarding substantial questions of law going to the root of the matter before the District Magistrate. · In pursuance to the said remand order, the District Magistrate has issued a show cause notice dated 14th December, 2017 for appearance of the petitioners on 12th January, 2018 for further proceedings under the impugned Rules. Ratio of the case - The Delhi High Court has upheld the District Magistrate’s power under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 to evict children, who do not maintain their parents, through a summary procedure.