New Delhi, May 28 (ILNS): The Supreme Court has allowed a woman till July 31 to vacate the premises of her father-in-law on the strength of provisions provided in the Senior Citizens Act.
One Daulat Ram’s son had contested (through his wife Jyotsana Pawar) his father’s demand for vacation of the premises of his son and daughter in-law, and despite a partition suit on in the High Court, the top court maintained that this particular issue needs to be handled first.
The order was passed by the Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant. The Bench also said that a join undertaking has to be submitted by both parties, and in default, contempt will be issued.
The Court had earlier asked the petitioner’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, to consider three months time to vacate the property of Daulat Ram Pawar. The Bench also observed that the litigation was actually at the behest of the elder son of Daulat Ram.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Sinha, Daulat Ram Pawar’s Counsel, submitted that a civil suit has been filed related to the disputed property and a partition suit is pending in the High Court, wherein certain remarks have been passed by the High Court, which might affect the merits of the case.
The amendment of the Domestic Violence Act in 2016 was brought to the picture in the context, but that did not deter the top court from passing the verdict. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had also dismissed Jyotsna’s appeal and this was a challenge of that order. The single Judge at the High Court had ordered that Jyotsna and her husband should vacate the premises in six months.
Daulat Ram had filed an eviction petition against his son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This petition was rejected by the District Magistrate and Daulat Ram had then moved the Appellate Court, which had ordered the son and his wife to vacate the premises in 15 days.
At that time, a statement was recorded before the Court by the son of Daulat Ram that he will vacate and hand over the possession of first floor on or before the expiration of six months. Meanwhile, a partition suit was filed before the Delhi High Court (Nandita Pawar and ors v Daulat Ram Pawar and ors), seeking partition of entire property – ground floor, First Floor, Second Floor, Third Floor, and Top Floor.
The son had challenged the Appellate Court order in the High Court. The Delhi High Court had pointed out that Jyotsana and others have taken the benefit of two extensions of six months and it was clear that the property in question did not belong to the son of Daulat Pawar and secondly, the Domestic Violence Act application was filed late. ILNS\KY\SJ\RJ