BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
INDEX
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi
Sir,
The present Writ Petition seeking set aside of the order dated 23.03.2023 in passed by Ld.District Magistrate (New Delhi) in case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as Raj Juneja vs Ashish Juneja & Ors. Whereby Ld. District Magistrate has directed to the petitioner to evict/vacate the property bearing No. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi within 30 days from the date 23.03.2023. considering the urgent nature of the prayer sought, request you to kindly consider the present petition as urgent.
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
(C O U R T F E E S)
A F F I X E D O N N E X T P A G E
APPLICANT/PETITIONER
Through Counsel for the Applicant
DR. ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA
ADVOCATE
(D/4972/2015)
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE: 17.04.2023
(C O U R T F E E S)
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
3rd level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002(India)
Through Standing Counsel
4/7, First Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002.
Mob.: 9868250806
Email: standingcounselgnctd@gmail.com
Raj Juneja
w/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Juneja
R/o Block 8 H.No.541,
Lodi Colony,
New Delhi-110003
Mob.: 8130168673
Madam/Sir,
Please take Note that the above noted matter will be listed in the Month of April, 2023, before this Hon’ble Court. It is therefore, requested you tom please enter your appearance on the said date.
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR …RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA
W/o Ashish Juneja
R/o C-4A/35A, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058 …PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
3rd level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002(India)
Through Standing Counsel
4/7, First Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
Mob.: 9868250806
Email: standingcounselgnctd@gmail.com
…RESPONDENT NO. 1
Raj Juneja
w/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Juneja
R/o Block 8 H.No.541,
Lodi Colony,
New Delhi-110003
Mob.: 8130168673 …RESPONDENT NO. 2
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
S Y N O P S I S
The present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi, under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 in Case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as “ Raj Juneja vs. Ashish Juneja & Ors.” vide which the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the petitioner alongwith her husband to vacate the property bearing No.C-4/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned property) within 30 days from the date of order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate i.e. order dated 23.03.2023. Copy of the Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Ld. District Magistrate is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/1.
That it is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. District Magistrate while passing the Eviction Order dated 23.03.2023, has failed to appreciate that the said Order is appealable as per Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi and the period of limitation for filing appeal is 60 days
It is further pertinent to mention here that the Ld. District Magistrate has also failed to consider the Order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court), Dwarka Court, New Delhi in the Case titled as Anju Mehta vs Raj Juneja vide MC No.892/2021 wherein Ld. MM pleased enough to provide a Protection Order during the pendency of the case and directed the Respondent No.2 that the petitioner shall not be evicted or dispossessed from the share house hold i.e. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi without following the due processes of law.
That it is to be noted that Ld. District Magistrate has also failed to consider its predecessor’s No Eviction Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Ld. District Magistrate Sh. Vikram Singh Malik wherein he considered the protection order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Ld. MM, Dwarka Court.
That the Ld. District Magistrate has also failed to appreciate the precedent passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “S.Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner” (2020 SCC Online 1023) as that the summary procedure under the Act cannot be used to defeat the claim of the Daughter in Law in frespect of shared house hold.
That the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to appreciate the precedent passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Various High Courts in several matters.
Hence, the present Writ Petition.
LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
2
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 R/W 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIASEEKING QUASH/SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED VY LEARNED DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI IN CASE BEARING NO.1/98/2021 TITLED AS RAJ JUNEJA VS ASHISH JUNEJA AND ORS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
The present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi, under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 in Case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as “ Raj Juneja vs. Ashish Juneja & Ors.” vide which the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the petitioner alongwith her husband to vacate the property bearing No.C-4/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned property) within 30 days from the date of order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate i.e. order dated 23.03.2023. Copy of the Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Ld. District Magistrate is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/1.
The Petitioner is married with Sh. Ashish Juneja and is daughter in law of the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner got married Sh. Ashish Juneja on 08.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
The brief facts lending up to filing the present appeal are mentioned hereunder:
The Petitioner got married Sh. Ashish JUneja on 08.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
Sh. Ashish Juneja (husband of the petitioner) was working in Dubai since 2001, and after the marriage of the petitioner, she resided in the matrimonial home till January 2004 with Respondent No.2 (Mother in Law of the Petitioner), however in January 2004 the Petitioner had shifted to Dubai with the Husband. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner along with her husband, regularly visited in India, time to time every year on vacation and stayed with Respondent No.2 (Mother in Law) in the Matrimonial Home during her stay in India.
Since the marriage of the petitioner with her husband, has been regularly tortured, harassed, abused criticized, suppressed, cursed, insulted, ridiculed, abandoned, stressed and suffocated mentally as well as emotionally by the Respondent No.2 and the result of the said ill-treatment given Respondent No.2, the Petitioner became patient of anxiety, panic attacks, depression, sleeplessness and stress and started medication for the same. The Copies of the medication and consultancy regarding anxiety, panic attacks, depression, sleeplessness and stress are being enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1A.
Since April 2018, after the demise of the husband of the Respondent No.2, she had chosen to stay and reside with her daughter Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva at Lodhi Colony, on her sweet will, despite of the several requests of the Petitioner and her husband to the Respondent No.2 for staying with them in Dubai.
Due to the world wide COVID Pandemic situation her husband and the petitioner have lost their respective jobs and on 28.02.2021, moved to India, there the petitioner started to live with her husband as well as with her Mother in Law i.e. Respondent No.2, in her matrimonial home, which is the solely residing place available to the petitioner.
However, Respondent No.2 kept chosen to live with her daughter namely Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva at Lodi Colony but she frequently visited to the matrimonial share hold home and in the mean time the Respondent No.2 stayed with the Petitioner and her husband in the matrimonial share hold home for so many days and again started the same ill-treatment towards the Petitioner.
Because of the unbearable ill-treatment of the Respondent No.2, the petitioner had filed a complaint against the Respondent No.2 in women cell vide Complaint No.3628996 at 1 am midnight on 06.08.2021 for abuse and harassment by the Respondent No.2 as she was causing to the petitioner in the mid night at around 1 am by continuous nagging, abusing and pushing the petitioner out of the matrimonial house vide pressuring the petitioner’s husband i.e. Respondent No.3 to give divorce to the petitioner as she is of no use, didn’t bring dowry, good for nothing and is childless. Because of the said behavior of the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner got panic attack. The extract of the Complaint No.3628996 dated 06.08.2021 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1B.
On 7.08.2021, the petitioner filed another complaint for Domestic Violence at Police Station-Janakpuri against the Respondent No.2 and her sister in laws because Respondent No.2 didn’t stop harassing and abusing the petitioner. The copy of the Complaint dated 07.08.2021 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1C.
It is pertinent to mention here that daughter of the Respondent No.2 namely Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva provoked the Respondent No.2 by saying that police doesn’t take senior citizens to the police station so no need to scared and keep doing the same ill-treatment towards the petitioner as earlier.
On 09.08.2021 the petitioner decided to take relief under the PWDV Act as the respondent No.2 was neither stopping harassing and abusing the petitioner nor realizing the damage she has caused in the petitioner’s overall personality, mental and physical health and life. Even continuously giving treat to the petitioner to evict the matrimonial home despite of knowing her mental health. The petitioner initiated the process. The Extract of the email dated 09.08.2021 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1D.
Upon the countermeasure, on 06.09.2021, the Respondent No.2 has filed an application under section 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and welfare of the parents and senior citizens Rules 2009 (amended) seeking eviction of the petitioner and her husband from the impugned property on the ground of alleged ill-treatment of the senior/parents. Copy of the Application dated 06.09.2021 is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/2.
In the Month of November, 2011, the petitioner has filed a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2006 (hereinafter PWDV Act) seeking certain relief against Respondent No.2. Copy of the petition under section 12 of the PWDV Act along with the supporting annexures is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/3(COLLY).
The Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Dwarka Court, was pleased to provide a protection order during the pendency of the case and direct the Respondent No.2 that the petitioner shall not be evicted or dispossessed from the impugned property vide order dated 21.12.2021. Copy of the Order dated 21.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/4.
The Ld. District Magistrate – Mr. Vikram Singh Malik passed a order dated 08.04.2022 stating wherein that no eviction order was given to the petitioner as no ill-treatment was established towards the Respondent No.2. the petitioner sought eviction relief under PWDV Act which is considered herewith. The point of the petitioner matrimonial house was taken into the consideration. At this juncture it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment of Vanitha vs DC was taken into consideration. The petitioner and her husband were retrained from interfering with the rights of the Respondent No.2 over the impugned property which was duly complied by the Petitioner and Respondent No.3. Copy of the order dated 08.04.2022 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/5.
It is pertinent to mention here that the to resolve this case the Ld. DM directed to the parties to join mediation however after two sittings before the mediator the mediation has been failed because of the adamant behavior of the Respondent No.2. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the proceeding of this case the fact came into the light of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 has another option for accommodation in Gurgaon and she is enjoying rent on that property. Even the Respondent is enjoying two pensions.Even the Ld. DM asked to respondent for maintenance but the Respondent No. 2 refuted the same and adamant on the eviction of the petitioner and her husband from the impugned property. Copy of the mediation orders are being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/6. Copy of the Title Deed qua the Gurgaon Property is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/6A.
That the Respondent No.2 filed an Application before the Ld. MM(Mahila Court), Dwarka District Courts for modification in order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Ld. MM(Mahila Court), Dwarlka Court, however the said application was not allowed by the Court vide order dated 18.05.202 and the protection from the eviction is still maintained by the Ld. MM, Dwarka Court. Copy of the order dated 18.05.2022 is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/7
The Respondent No.2 filed an Application dated 20.05.2022, seeking eviction of the petitioner and her husband from the impugned property.
The Respondent No.2 had filed another application dated 13.06.2022 to New District Magistrate namely Sh. Hemant Kumar to review his predecessor order dated 08.04.2022 on completely false and frivolous grounds and the Respondent No.2 misleaded the Ld. District Magistrate Court about the entire court proceedings and the eviction relief in the said application.
It is pertinent to mention here that after the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the predecessor Ld. DM, the Respondent No.2 filed three back to back application before Ld. DM Court on 20.05.2022, 13.06.2022 & 30.07.2022 respectively. Copies of the Application dated 20.05.2022, 13.06.2022 & 30.07.2022 are being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/8(COLLY).
That it is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. DM Court of Sh. Hemant Kumar is allowed the Respondent No.2 to file the above-said application which were clearly evident that those application are based on after-thought alteration and mere summersault after the No Eviction order was passed by his predecessorDM Mr. Vikram Malik&Eviction Relief order fetched by the petitioner from the Ld. MM Court. The facts were mentioned in the above said application are twisted and misrepresented by the respondent No.2 and the Ld. DM court of Sh. Hemant Kumar appreciated those twisted and misrepresented facts based applications. The Ld. DM – SH. Hemant Kumar didn’t even question from the Respondent No.2 why she is adamant about the eviction of the petitioner from the impugned property when the Respondent No.2 is being living with her daughter with her sweet will and the said impugned property is being vacate since 2018, then why all of sudden this came into the mind of the Respondent No.2 to fetch the eviction order from this Court even having alternate option for accommodations.
On 12.10.2022, the daughter of the Respondent No.2 namely Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva personally met with Ld. DM namely Sh. Hemant Kumar. The Ld. DM namely Sh. Hemant Kumar directed his reader to issue the notice to the petitioner and Respondent No.3. it is pertinent to mention here that the daughter of the Respondent No.2 named Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva is the main influence for filing the said senior citizen case, who is continuously provoking and instigating to the Respondent No.2 to initiate this false and frivolous senior citizen case against the petitioner and her husband i.e. Respondent No.3 to evict them from the impugned property to fulfill her own desire as the husband of the daughter named Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva wants to open a shop in the premises of the impugned property and she herself is getting retire soon and has to vacate the government granted accommodation and she herself want to move in the impugned property and if the petitioner and her husband would get evicted from the impugned property she will be the sole beneficiary. Copy of the Visiting Slip of Ms. Ruchi Sachdeva is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/9.
On 20.10.2022, being first date of hearing, the petitioner requested before the Ld. DM Court as she is not aware about why she has been called to appear before this Court and provide the copy of the applications filed by the Respondent No.2.
On 28.11.2022, the Petitioner and her husband have filed joint reply along with the supporting annexures to the said application before the Ld. DM Court of Sh. Hemnat Kumar, however the Ld. DM asked has not taken the Petitioners response & asked the petitioner to bring it on the next date of hearing i.e. 15.12.2022. On 15.12.2021 the Petitioner and her husband filed to the join reply before the Ld. DM, Sh. Hemant Kumar, where the Ld. DM, Sh. Hemnat Kumar passed order dated 15.12.2021 without even consider the joint reply filed by the petitioner and her husband for eviction of the against the petitioner and her husband. Copies of the Join Reply by the petitioner and her husband are being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/10.
Ld. DM Court of Sh. Hemant Kumar passed an order for eviction of the against the petitioner and her husband vide order dated 15.12.2022. copy of the order dated 15.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/11.
The petitioner filed an appeal under rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009 before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Delhi against the handwritten order dated 15.12.2022 passed by Ld. DM.
Against the order dated 15.12.2022, the Petitioner availed remedy before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and filed a Writ petition titled as Anju Mehta alias Anju Juneja vs Govt. NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vide WP(C) 1253/2023. Vide order dated 01.02.2023 the Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted till the stay application is decided by the Divisional Commissioner and disposed off the said writ petition. Copy of the Order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Court is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/11.
The Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2023. However it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.2 never appeared before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner’s Court. Copy of the order dated 24.03.2023 is being annexed as ANNEXURE P/12.
The typed order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi, under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 in Case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as “ Raj Juneja vs. Ashish Juneja & Ors.” vide which the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the petitioner alongwith her husband to vacate the property bearing No.C-4/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned property) within 30 days from the date of order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate i.e. order dated 23.03.2023.
That being aggrieved by the order date 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistre Court of Sh. Hemant Kumar, the petitioner herewith has filed the present writ petition on the following grounds:
GROUNDS
Because the Ld. District Magistrate while passing the Eviction Order dated 23.03.2023, has failed to appreciate that the said Order is appealable as per Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi and the period of limitation for filing appeal is 60 days;
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to consider the Order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court), Dwarka Court, New Delhi in the Case titled as Anju Mehta vs Raj Juneja vide MC No.892/2021 wherein Ld. MM pleased enough to provide a Protection Order during the pendency of the case and directed the Respondent No.2 that the petitioner shall not be evicted or dispossessed from the share house hold i.e. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi without following the due processes of law.
Because vide passing the order dated 23.03.2023 the Ld. District Magistrate Court of Sh. Hemant Kumar erroneously supersededthe power of the Ld. MM(Mahila Court) provided under PWDV Act.
Because the Ld. District Magistrate Sh. Hemant Kumar has failed to consider its predecessor’s No Eviction Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Ld. District Magistrate Sh. Vikram Singh Malik wherein he considered the protection order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Ld. MM, Dwarka Court.
That the Ld. District Magistrate has also failed to appreciated precedent passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “S.Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner” (2020 SCC Online 1023) as that the summary procedure under the Act cannot be used to defeat the claim of the Daughter in Law in respect of shared house hold.
Because the Ld. District Magistrate passed the impugned order without assigning any reason whether the Petitioner and her husband had done any act which can be amounted as ill-treatment towards senior citizen,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide whether the domestic violence has been committed as per the provisions under PWDV Act or not,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate is bound to verified whether the Senior Citizen was ill-treated/ not maintained by the son/daughter/legal heir as per the reliance is placed on Arshya Gulati vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2019 SCC Online Del.8801,
Because neither section 27 nor section 3 of the Act confers power on the Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate to effectively vacate an injunction order passed by a Civil Court’
Because it is a settled position that if a civil court has granted an injunction for maintenance of status quo, the Authority under the Act cannot pass any order contrary to the said injunction as reliance placed on Shyam Lal vs Devendra Dev Anand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5441 of 2015 passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench.
Because the Ld. District Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.2 has another accommodation in Gurugaon,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent is enjoying two pensions and living a financial independent life and refuted the take maintenance offered by the predecessor DM Court,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to consider that the Petitioner has only this impugned property solely to reside,
Because the Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.2 has failed to prove the ill-treatment by the Petitioner committed towards her, which is the essential measurement to pronounce eviction order under this Act,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to consider the proof and evidence provided by the petitioner wherein it is clearly evident that the Petition has not committed any ill-treatment towards the Respondent No.2 rather the Respondent No.2 ill-treated to the Petitioner,
Because the Ld. District magistrate failed to consider the concealment and suppression of the facts by the Respondent No.2,
Because the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate is gross violation of the “Right to reside”of the Petitioner’
Because the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate is gross violation of the reliance place on Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja (AIR 2020 SC 5397), herein Hon’ble Apex Court held that impugned order cannot defeat the protective order passed under PWDV Act, 2006,
Because the Ld. District Magistrate ought not to have directed the petitioner to vacate the impugned property within 30 days, knowing the law that the time limitation to file appeal against the impugned order is itself a period of 60 days,
Because the Ld. DM Court of Sh. Hemant Kumar is allowed the Respondent No.2 to file the above-said application which were clearly evident that those application are based on after-thought alteration and mere summersault after the No Eviction order was passed by his predecessorDM Mr. Vikram Malik&the Eviction Relief order fetched by the petitioner from the Ld. MM Court. The facts were mentioned in the above said application are twisted and misrepresented by the respondent No.2 and the Ld. DM court of Sh. Hemant Kumar appreciated those twisted and misrepresented facts based applications. The Ld. DM – SH. Hemant Kumar didn’t even question from the Respondent No.2 why she is adamant about the eviction of the petitioner from the impugned property when the Respondent No.2 is being living with her daughter with her sweet will and the said impugned property is being vacate since 2018, then why all of sudden this came into the mind of the Respondent No.2 to fetch the eviction order from this Court even having alternate option for accommodations.
Because the the DM Sh. Hemant Kumar passed the impugned order without considering the police Complaints dated 06.08.2021 & 07.08.2021 raised by the petitioner,
Any other ground which may be urged before the Hon’ble Court at the time of argument.
That the petitioner does not have any other efficacious or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition challenging the impugned Order either in this Hon’ble Court or in any other Hon’ble Court of Law or Supreme Court of India for the relief sought.
PRAYER
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the submissions, the Petitioner humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ appropriate, order or direction to quash/ set aside the impugned Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Ld. District Magistrate in the matter titled as Raj Juneja vs Ashsih Juneja vid Case No. 1/98/2021; AND;
Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.
New Delhi Date:
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _____ Day of April 2023 that the contents of the Paras Nos. 1 to 3 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and Para No.4 to 5 are believed to be gtrue as per legal advice and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. The last para is humble prayer before this Hon’ble Court.
PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Anju Mehta alias Anju Juneja, w/o Sh. Ashish Juneja, R/o C4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi, aged about _______years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.
That the Deponent is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to wear this affidavit.
That the contents of the accompanying writ petition has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same are correct and true and have been read over to me in my vernacular language and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _____ Day of April 2023 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING LEGIBLE/MARGIN SMALL FONT/DIM/ CERTIFIED/ TRUE TYPED/ TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
The present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi, under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 in Case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as “ Raj Juneja vs. Ashish Juneja & Ors.” vide which the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the petitioner alongwith her husband to vacate the property bearing No.C-4/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned property) within 30 days from the date of order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate i.e. order dated 23.03.2023.
That the averment and grounds mentioned in the accompanying petition is relied upon and may be read as part and parcel of this application and the same shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity.
That the petitioner craves to leave to refer to and rely upon the contents of the accompanying petition in the present Application, and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
That the present application is being filed for seeking exemption from filing LEGIBLE/ MARGIN SMALL FONT/ DIM/ CERTIFIED/ TRUE TYPED/ TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES (ANNEXURE P/1 to P/___) annexed to the accompanying petition in view of the urgency in moving the present petition. The petitioner undertakes to file the same as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court, upon obtaining the same copies.
That the present application is bona-fide and is in the interest of justice and grave prejudice is likely to be caused in the event that the present application is not allowed.
PRAYER
In the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
Exempt the Applicat/ Petitioner from filing LEGIBLE/MARGIN SMALL FONT/DIM/ CERTIFIED/ TRUE TYPED/ TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES annexed with this petition;
Pass any such and further order(s) or direction as this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this petition may deem fit and proper.
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Anju Mehta alias Anju Juneja, w/o Sh. Ashish Juneja, R/o C4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.
That the Deponent is the applicant/petitioner in the present Writ Petition and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to wear this affidavit.
That the contents of the accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same are correct and true and have been read over to me in my vernacular language and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _____ Day of April 2023 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING INTERIM STAY ON THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATE 23.03.2023 PAASED BY LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IN THE CASE TITLED AS RAJ JUNEJA VS ASHISH JUNEJA AND ORS. VIDE CASE NO. 1/98/2021
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
The present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi, under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 in Case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled as “ Raj Juneja vs. Ashish Juneja & Ors.” vide which the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the petitioner alongwith her husband to vacate the property bearing No.C-4/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned property) within 30 days from the date of order passed by the Ld. District Magistrate i.e. order dated 23.03.2023.
That the averment and grounds mentioned in the accompanying petition is relied upon and may be read as part and parcel of this application and the same shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity.
That the petitioner craves to leave to refer to and rely upon the contents of the accompanying petition in the present Application, and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
That the present application is being filed for seeking seeking interim stay on the operation of the order date 23.03.2023 paased by ld. District magistrate in the case titled as raj juneja vs ashish juneja and ors. Vide case no. 1/98/2021 as the Ld. Magistrate erroneously directed to the petitioner to vacate the impugned property which is impermissible under the Senior Citizen Act 2007.
That the present application is bona-fide and is in the interest of justice and grave prejudice is likely to be caused in the event that the present application is not allowed.
PRAYER
In the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
Grant interim stay to the Applicant/Petitioner from the operation of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Ld. District Magistrate; AND;
Pass any such and further order(s) or direction as this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this petition may deem fit and proper.
New Delhi Date:17.04.2023
Through Counsel for the Petitioner
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.comkm
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Anju Mehta alias Anju Juneja, w/o Sh. Ashish Juneja, R/o C4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.
That the Deponent is the applicant/petitioner in the present Writ Petition and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to wear this affidavit.
That the contents of the accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same are correct and true and have been read over to me in my vernacular language and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _____ Day of April 2023 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 65-B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
I, Anju Mehta alias Anju Juneja, w/o Sh. Ashish Juneja, R/o C4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.
That the Deponent is the applicant/petitioner in the present Writ Petition and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to wear this affidavit.
That I state that I have personally taken the print of the email dated 09.08.2021 from my mail id mehtaanju100@gmail.com from my mobile phone and the printout of the same is taken from my Iphone. The phone used by the me is functioning normally all the times and free from all viruses and bugs. The mobile phone utilized by me was operating properly and there is no destruction, fabrication and manipulation or interpolation in the accuracy of the contents of the document being filed by the petitioner herein.
That the present affidavit is in compliance of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
That the contents of the above-mentioned affidavit are have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same are correct and true and have been read over to me in my vernacular language and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _____ Day of April 2023 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU MEHTA ALIAS ANJU JUNEJA …PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
P R O O F O F S E R V I C E
That, the Respondents are being served with the Notice of Motion through:
Counsel via email standingcounselgnctd@gmail.com on 10.05.2023 delivered at 1607 hours intimating them about the said petition.
Respondent No. 2 via Whatsapp No. 8130168673 delivered at 1602 hours on 10.05.2023 intimating them about the said petition.
New Delhi
Date: 17.04.2023
Through the Counsel for the Petitioner
Adv. Anupam Kumar Mishra
(D/4972/2015)
A1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
Comments
Post a Comment