Can Senior Citizens Seek Eviction Of Daughter-In-Law From Their Property? Delhi HC Upholds 2009 Delhi Rules

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the eviction of a woman from the property of her mother-in-law, holding that her claim to reside in the shared household was not "indefeasible" and had to be considered against the right of the senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life.

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that, in the facts of the case, the mother-in-law, being a senior citizen, was entitled to live peacefully and "not haunted by the matrimonial discord" between her son and daughter-in-law.

Court dismissed the petitioner, namely Punam's, challenge to the order directing her to vacate the property and hand over peaceful possession to her mother-in-law.

Senior Citizens Rules Allowing Eviction Upheld

Court also rejected Punam's challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which provide for eviction proceedings against a son, daughter or legal heir on account of non-maintenance and ill-treatment of a senior citizen.

Court held that the provisions were within the rule-making power available to the State under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

It noted that while Chapter II of the Act deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizens, Chapter V deals with the protection of their life and property. Section 22 empowers the State Government to confer powers and impose duties on the District Magistrate necessary to ensure implementation of the Act and requires a comprehensive action plan for protecting the life and property of senior citizens.

"Accordingly, the provisions contained in Rule 22 (3)(1) of the 2009 Rules, which provides for the procedure for eviction from the property/residential building of senior citizens/parents, are referable to Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act," court said.

What About Woman’s Right To Shared Household?

Punam had argued that Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives a woman in a domestic relationship a right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the property.

She had also filed an application under Section 19 of the DV Act seeking a residence order against her husband and mother-in-law. The proceedings were pending before the Mahila Court at Saket.

The high court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021), which held that the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act have to be harmoniously construed and that a woman's right to seek a residence order cannot simply be defeated by obtaining an eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act.

However, while considering the facts of Punam's case, the high court noted that the Divisional Commissioner had found that she had a separate house at Bahadurgarh and was working as a Post Graduate Teacher with a substantial income.

Court also noted that the mother-in-law had stated that she wanted to spend the remainder of her life peacefully and that the matrimonial dispute between Punam and her husband should not result in her being subjected to litigation and complaints.

"If the respondent no.2 is not able to live normally and peacefully in the evening of her life, who is otherwise entitled to live peacefully and not haunted by the matrimonial discord between her son and daughter-in-law," court observed.

Why Was The Eviction Order Upheld?

The dispute dates back to 2018, when Punam's mother-in-law initiated proceedings seeking her eviction under the 2009 Rules.

The SDM conducted an inquiry and reported that "nothing could be established" regarding harassment by Punam. It described the matter as a "mutual family dispute and conflict between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law" and said no specific conclusion could be drawn on whether Punam was causing harassment.

The District Magistrate subsequently rejected the eviction application on February 10, 2021. The mother-in-law challenged this before the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on July 7, 2022 and directed Punam to vacate the property.

The high court upheld that order.

It also rejected the argument that Rule 22 did not cover a daughter-in-law. It reiteratec that the expression "son and daughter or legal heirs" cannot be interpreted restrictively.

Court further held that eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) are independent of maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, a senior citizen can maintain an eviction application even without separately seeking maintenance.

Court relied on Supreme Court decisions including Ravi Kant Gupta, Samtola Devi, Rajeswar Prasad Roy and Kamalakant Mishra, which recognised the authority to order eviction where necessary for the maintenance and protection of senior citizens.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Petitioner Punam was represented by advocates Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil and Sarthak Malawaliya. Respondent no. 2 (the mother-in-law) was represented by advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain, Aditi Singh, Shiven Varma and Rishabh Mistry. GNCTD was represented by Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht and Panel Counsel Vaishali Gupta.

Case Title: Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

Order Date: 30 September 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia