The Delhi High Court has upheld provisions allowing authorities to order the eviction of family members from a senior citizen's property when their conduct involves non-maintenance or ill-treatment. According to reports from Business Standard, a division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 in the case of Punam vs Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi. The judgment was delivered on September 30, 2026, and involved a daughter-in-law who challenged an order directing her to vacate her mother-in-law's property. The court rejected her challenge and upheld the eviction order, establishing that eviction is a permissible protective measure where the conditions under Rule 22 are met. Latest reports from Manupatra confirm that the court held that eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 are independent of maintenance proceedings under the 2007 Act.
As reported by Business Standard, the rules allow a senior citizen or parent to approach the District Magistrate seeking eviction of a son, daughter or legal heir from the property where there is non-maintenance or ill-treatment. According to Priya Gada, advocate at D. M. Harish & Co. LLP, the provision can cover property of any kind, including self-acquired or ancestral property. The court rejected arguments that Delhi had exceeded central law powers, holding that Section 22 allows the state government to frame an action plan to protect the life and property of senior citizens and confer powers on the District Magistrate. Vipul Jai, partner at PSL Advocates and Solicitors, noted that the rule derives its authority from Sections 22 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Latest reports from Manupatra confirm that the court established that the eviction mechanism under Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) is not ultra vires the Act.
According to Business Standard, one of the significant aspects of the judgment is that a senior citizen does not first have to file a separate claim for monetary maintenance before seeking eviction. The court held that proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) operate independently of maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the 2007 Act. Apoorva Pandey, advocate at Delhi High Court, said the ruling reinforces the welfare objective of the Senior Citizens Act and recognises eviction as a means of protecting an elderly person where necessary. This position gained strength from recent Supreme Court rulings, with the court citing Ravi Kant Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh in August, which held that a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act can order eviction when necessary to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen. Latest reports from Manupatra confirm that the court held that eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 are independent of maintenance proceedings under the 2007 Act.
As reported by Business Standard, the daughter-in-law argued that she had a right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the high court did not accept this as an absolute right, holding that the right to reside in a shared household is not indefeasible and has to be balanced against the senior citizen's right to live peacefully. The court noted that the daughter-in-law had a separate house in Bahadurgarh and was employed as a postgraduate teacher, with Shashank Agarwal, advocate, emphasizing that the shared-household right under the Domestic Violence Act cannot automatically override senior citizen protection. Supriya Majumdar, partner at Elarra Law Offices, said the court had adopted a broad interpretation of the Senior Citizens Act while recognising that a senior citizen should not be forced to endure circumstances that affect their peaceful enjoyment of their property.
According to Business Standard, B. Shravanth Shanker, managing partner at B. Shanker Advocates LLP, stressed that the judgment does not create an automatic power to evict every daughter-in-law from a senior citizen's property. The facts of each case remain important, with authorities needing to examine whether circumstances justify eviction and whether the senior citizen's maintenance, protection or peaceful living is being affected. For property-owning senior citizens, the law provides protection when occupation by family members is accompanied by neglect or ill-treatment, while family members claiming residential rights must balance these against statutory senior citizen protection. The ruling makes clear that the shared-household right under the Domestic Violence Act cannot automatically override the protection available to a senior citizen, providing clarity for families where elderly parents own the house but face disputes with children or their spouses over occupation. Latest reports from Manupatra confirm that the court's ruling provides clear legal framework for senior citizens seeking eviction of family members under the Senior Citizens Act.
