Dismissed

Suchit Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking restoration of possession. Upholding orders by the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner, the Court found no infirmity in directing the petitioners to vacate premises for a senior citizen, noting consistent findings of the lower courts regarding peaceful pos

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and disposed of along with the pending application for exemption from public interest litigation.

Suchit Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15564/2024

¶4

SUCHIT KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Ashish Negi, Ms. Sushila, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam Rajput, Ms. Preeti, Advocates for R-1

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

% 08.11.2024

¶12

CM APPL. 65324/2024 ( Exemption)

¶13

Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

¶15

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 15564/2024 & CM APPL. 65323/2024 (for stay)

¶16

The Petitioners are the sons and daughter-in-laws of Respondent No. 2, a senior citizen. They have filed the instant petition impugning order dated 19^th March, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority of Divisional Commissioner. Through the said order, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the Petitioners’ appeal against the order of eviction dated 12^th January, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate on an application filed by Respondent No. 2, Smt. Sita Devi under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Pursuant to the impugned orders, the Petitioners were directed to vacate the 1^st floor of property bearing no. 283-A/9, Amrit Puri-B, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi.¹

¶17

Mr. Ashish Negi, counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, states that although the Petitioners have vacated the 1^st floor of the subject property in

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/11/2024 at 11:31:42

¶20

compliance with the aforenoted directions, however, they are entitled to restoration of the same, and seek setting aside of the impugned orders.

¶21

Mr. Negi contends that that Respondent No. 2 has concealed the fact that she in possession of two other properties and is earning rental income out of the same. He also submits that the 1^st floor of the subject property has been lying vacant for the last six months, and has not been occupied by Respondent No. 2. In order to demonstrate that the first floor of the property is locked and is lying vacant, the Petitioners have attached photographic evidence, which is annexed as Annexure P-11 in the writ petition.

¶22

The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions, but remains unconvinced. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the District Magistrate as well as the Divisional Commissioner have examined the facts of the case and observed that the Petitioners had been interfering with the peaceful possession of Respondent No. 2 in the subject authority. Accordingly, the said courts have concluded that Respondent No. 2, being a senior citizen, has a right to secure possession of the property, and thus, directed the Petitioners to vacate the same. In light of the consistent findings of the two courts, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders.

¶23

Whether Respondent No. 2, at this stage, lets out the subject property to a tenant or intends to occupy the same in the coming future, is subject to the discretion of Respondent No. 2, and the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶24

The Court finds no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of along with pending application.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 8, 2024/ab

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. 1 “subject property” The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/11/2024 at 11:31:42

Suchit Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchit Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Singh Sahrawat Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S v. S. Builders Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Nkg Enterprises Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Sonu Builders Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Kiran Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority

Panchhi Petha Store Vs Union of India & Ors.

Saman Khanam Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Ashneer Grover Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Saini Vs the Power Finance Corporation Ltd.

Arpan Verma and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh Tej Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pooja Fps Vs Commissioner Food and Supply & Anr.

Virbhan Vs Government of NCT Delhi through Excise Commissioner & Anr.

Dr Dinesh Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Vs National Medical Commission