Case Title:
POOJA MEHTA & ORS. Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Date of Order:
4th October 2024
Bench:
Justice Sanjay Narula
Parties:
Petitioners - POOJA MEHTA & ORS
Respondents- GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Subject;
This is a case filed by a daughter-in-law against eviction from her in-laws' property where she claimed the protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Delhi High Court weighed this against the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, gave precedence to the rights of senior citizens, and dismissed the eviction order on the grounds of maintaining legality.
Important Provisions
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 17: Right to reside in a shared household
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Introduction
The case of Pooja Mehta & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors is one related to legal conflict with regard to the dispute between members of the family concerning property, and it has brought into public view the eviction of Pooja Mehta, a daughter-in-law, from her mother-in-law's property.
The issue also raises some very significant legal questions relating to the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and protection available to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In this judgment, competing rights under the two enactments are addressed, and the familial discord regarding ownership rights in respect of properties and residence rights is resolved.
Facts
Pooja was staying with husband with his parents in Delhi. Moreover, in respect of the same issue this very respondent No.3 is mother-in-law of applicant and she is owner of said property also. The marital family after falling into discord started leveling allegations of torture and harassment against each other.
Pooja Mehta's mother-in-law amongst others slammed the case into the Senior Citizens Act and filed an eviction plea; she further accused harassment and ill treatment. She wanted the house back, stating that Pooja Mehta or her husband was entitled to no right over the house.
Invoking Section 3 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the District Magistrate on September 18, 2020, passed an eviction order against Pooja Mehta and her husband.
It is submitted that the said eviction order of dated 31 March 2021 stood confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. The challenge to this order came before the High Court of Delhi in the form of this present writ petition and the petitioners had submitted that in terms of the Domestic Violence Act, Pooja Mehta was allowed to stay in the shared household.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The petitioners, through Pooja Mehta, contested that order of eviction violated Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because it conferred upon a woman an independent right to reside in a shared household irrespective of whether she owns it or not.
They argued since Pooja Mehta had been living in the house with her husband since their marriage in 2013, the property qualified as a "shared household" under the Domestic Violence Act, and hence she could not be evicted.
In addition, the petitioners contended that the property in dispute was not exclusively held by Respondent No. 3, but a family-owned company, Aster Estates Pvt. Ltd. was holding, since its shares had been apportioned among different members of the family.
The petitioner, therefore urged, that in the present case, the property could not be said to be exclusively owned by the mother-in-law and she, therefore, could not be ejected under the Senior Citizens Act.
The other contention advanced by the petitioners is the poor health and financial limitation of the petitioner Pooja Mehta along with her two children of the previous marriage. They claimed that the eviction would unduly put hardships upon her two minor children who shall be left homeless without any proper shelter or adequate care and support.
The other allegations made by the petitioners are that the eviction proceeding was launched at the instance of the brother of Pooja Mehta's husband owing to ulterior motives of taking control over the family property.
The final argument presented by the applicants was that the family could peacefully cohabitate within the large property and pleaded with the court to take a conciliatory approach in balancing both parties' interests without turning it into an eviction case.
Claims of Respondents
Respondents, represented by Senior Counsel Vivek Chib, have fiercely defended the order of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act. On behalf of them, it is argued that Respondent No. 3 being a senior citizen, is well within his rights to evict Pooja Mehta and her husband from the property on the grounds available to elderly persons to claim back their properties where they are being treated abominably by their children or relatives under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The respondents advanced that Pooja Mehta and her husband had subjected Respondent No. 3 to grave emotional harassment and monetary exploitation, and that the eviction order is called for for the wellbeing of the mental and emotional wellbeing of the elderly lady.
The respondents further submitted that whether Respondent No. 3 was a registered owner of the property or she was only a part owner thereof under the Senior Citizens Act is irrelevant; what matters is her right to peacefully live without harassment.
The respondents found unconvincing the petitioners' claims that the eviction is motivated by malice, or family politics. They averred that the case was one of protection of dignity and rights as a geriatric who had been abused in her own home.
They contended that rights under the Domestic Violence Act cannot override the rights of the senior citizen owner to live in the house, considering that Pooja was in a relationship of domestic abuse/misconduct with the owner.
They relied on judicial precedents which inter alia held that the Senior Citizens Act appeared to treat the resident senior citizen far more leniently, particularly in the event of a case dealing with domestic violence or maltreatment at the hands of a woman.
Analysis by the Court
The rights enjoyed under the Domestic Violence Act are analysed under the consideration of the Delhi High Court in the hands of Justice Sanjeev Narula. It was noticed that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was enacted with a main objective to protect the interests and well-being of older persons, besides offering remedies such as eviction if elderly people experience mistreatment or torture by their children or relatives.
On the other hand, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 aims to protect women from abuse in their houses and as such it gives the right to reside in the shared household.
Agreeing these two conflicting legal rights, the Court relied heavily on judgments in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and S. In Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the rights of women to remain in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act must be balanced with the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully under the Senior Citizens Act. The Court further said that neither Act could be applied in isolation and harmonious interpretation became necessary.
Observing the above facts, Domestic Violence Act was held to confer a right upon women to reside in the shared household. However, the said right is relative and has to be balanced against property rights.
Evidence in the case showed that Respondent No. 3 had indeed suffered considerable harassment and mistreatment by Pooja Mehta along with her husband which resulted in a breakdown of family relations.
It was observed that even with the right to reside under the Domestic Violence Act, a woman was not allowed to even treat or harass the property owner, more so where the owner himself is a senior citizen.
Finally, regarding the claim of the petitioners over ownership of the properties, the Court did not believe in an argument that a property held under shared ownership by a family company should be a bar to eviction.
Held, in the instant case, although the property is not exclusively owned by the senior citizen where the senior citizen enjoys a legal right to live over such property, it did provide jurisdiction for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court found Respondent No.3 had sufficient ownership interest in the subject property to file an eviction action under the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court dismissed the petitioners' claims that the eviction was driven by family politics or manipulated by Pooja Mehta's brother-in-law. The Court observed on its own that the eviction proceedings had been initiated by Respondent No. 3 herself, and no iota of undue influence or manipulation was found in such proceeding.
Lastly, the Court considered the plea of the petitioners that eviction would be causing undue hardship to Pooja Mehta and her children. Paying heed to these apprehensions, the Court observed that it could not buttress over the statutory safeguards that the law accorded to senior citizens.
The Court pointed out that Pooja Mehta's husband had the wherewithal to arrange for an alternative accommodation for the family, so that eviction would not be leaving them homeless.
Conclusion
In this case, the Delhi High Court held that the welfare and rights of the aforesaid Respondent No. 3, being a senior citizen, were very much superior to the aforesaid right of the petitioners to stay in the shared household under the Domestic Violence Act.
The aforesaid Court found the petitioners to have treated Respondent No. 3 miserably and ordered eviction for protection of her mental and emotional well-being.
The Court clarified that though the Act confers considerable rights on women, such rights and entitlements must be weighed against the rights of senior citizens to live in peace and dignity free from abuse.
Here, the order of eviction by the trial court was prima facie based on evidence proving mistreatment, and hence dismissal thereof cannot avow on account of the challenge by the petitioners before the Court.
It is concerning to note that the judgment closely resonates with the welfare and protection of senior citizens' rights while taking due care not to push things too far in deciding disputes over property and residence within families.
The High Court ordered Pooja Mehta and her family to vacate the property within one month, further ordering her husband to arrange alternative accommodation.
The judgment is a reminder of what legal protection senior citizens have under the Senior Citizens Act and reinforces the principle that such protections cannot be undermined by the misuse of residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act.
