BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
I N D E X
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
ANJU JUNEJA
W/o Ashish Juneja
R/o C-4A/35A, Janakpuri,
NewDelhi-110058 …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
Raj Juneja
W/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Juneja
R/o Block 8 H.No. 541
Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003
Mob:-8130168673 ...RESPONDENT No.1
Ashish Juneja
S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Juneja
R/o C-4A/35A, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058 ...RESPONDENT No.2
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
U R G E N T A P P L I C A T I O N
To
The Registrar,
Office of Divisional Commissioner,
New Delhi
Sir,
The present appeal is being filed on behalf of Mrs. Anju Juneja under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 as amended till date seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Ld District Magistrate, New Delhi District, in case bearing No. 1/98/2021 titled 'Raj Juneja versus Ashish Juneja and Ors.” whereby the Ld District Magistrate has directed the Appellant and Respondent No.2 herein to vacate the property bearing no C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi within 30 days from the date of the order dated 23.03.2023. The Appellant is also seeking to stay on the operation of the impugned order till the present appeal is decided. Request you to kindly meet the present application as urgent as the date of eviction from the suit premises on 23.03.2023.
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
APPEAL UNDER RULE 22(3)(4) OF THE DELHI MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN RULES, 2009 AS AMENDED TILL DATE SEEKING SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, IN CASE BEARING No.1/98/2021 TITLED AS “RAJ JUNEJA VS. ASHISH JUNEJA AND ORS.”
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
That the present appeal is being filed on behalf of Mrs Anju Juneja under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 as amended till date seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District, in the case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled "Raj Juneja Versus Ashish Juneja and Ors' whereby the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the Appellant herein to vacate the property bearing No. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned property’) within 30 days from 23.03.2023. (A copy of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure-A1.)
The Appellant is married to Respondent No.2, Mr Ashish Juneja and is the daughter-in-law of the Respondent No. 1. The Appellant got married to Respondent No.2 on 08.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present appeal are mentioned hereunder:
The Appellant got married to Mr. Ashish Juneja on 08.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
The Appellant, immediately after her marriage went to her matrimonial home at the impugned property.
The Appellant had also filed a complaint against the Respondent No.1 in women cell vide complaint No. 3628996. Further, the Appellant has filed another complaint vide DD entry No. 77A dated 07.08.2021 filed at Janak Puri Police Station against the Respondent No.1 and her sister-in-laws; however, no action has been taken till today.Copy of the complaint dated 07.08.2021 at PS Janakpuri, Delhi against the Respondent No.1 and sister-in-laws is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure-A2.
The Respondent No.1, as a countermeasure, filed an application under section 22(3)(1) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009 (amended) on 6th September 2021 seeking eviction of Appellant and Respondent No.2 from the impugned property on the ground of ill-treatment of the senior/parents.
That the Respondent No.2 is working in Dubai since 2001 and after the marriage of the Appellant she resided in the matrimonial home since January 2004 with the respondent No.1, after that she had also shifted to Dubai and every year the appellant stayed in her matrimonial house with the Respondent no1, during her stay in India. When the Appellant moved back to India in February 2021 she came to her matrimonial house.
The Appellant’s life is made a roller coaster by respondent No.1 since she got married. She has been suffocated and suppressed. criticized, cursed, insulted, ridiculed, abandoned stressed by the respondent No.1 to the point where the Appellant end up suffering from Panic attacks, depression, insecurity & sleeplessness. The damage respondent has caused to the Appellant is beyond repair. The impact on the Appellant's life is inhumane. There is a change in the Appellant's personality from cheerful & bold to scared & uncertain. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant is on medication for anxiety/panic, depression &sleep. (Copy of the medical prescription of the Appellant is marked and annexed as Annexure-A3)
That the Respondent No.1 made Appellant handicapped mentally, socially & emotionally. That the Respondent No.1 ensured that the Appellant cry on every step of her life. That the Respondent No.1 always wishes sickness for the Appellant on her face. That the Respondent No.1 created trouble in the Appellant’s married life. That the Respondent No.1 even made Appellant realise she has nowhere to go & she has to accept everything as after marriage the body keeps the girl. She said, "Nobody keeps a daughter after marriage; ask your brother if will he keep you". That the Appellant was so depressed with all the criticism & nagging that once Appellant asked the respondent No.1 that in these so many years of marriage, you didn't find even a single quality in me to appreciate & the respondent no 1 answer was "NO". That although Respondent no1 wrote a confession of behaving wrong & badly with the Appellant & her husband but still there is no sign of improvement in her behaviour. (Copy of the Confession letter of Respondent is marked and annexed as Annexure- A4)
That since the Appellant was treated with cruelty and suffered mental and physical harassment at the hand of her in-laws, the Appellant filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2006 (hereinafter ‘PWDV ACT’) seeking certain relief in November 2021. The said case bearing No. MC 892/2021 is still pending adjudication before the Ld. MM, Dwarka Court. Copy of the DV complaint filed by the Appellant is annexed and marked as Annexure-A5.
Respondent No. 1 is in possession of appellant Streedhan and refused to give it back to the appellant. The respondent no1 has transferred the family bank locker to her daughter Mrs. Ruchi Sachdeva name is where the gold jewellery of the appellant is deposited.
That after the filing of the DV complaint by the Appellant, the LD. MM was pleased enough to provide a protection order during the pendency of the case and direct the respondent No.1 that the Appellant shall not be evicted or disposed of from the shared household i.e, C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi without following the due process of law. (Copy of the order dated 21.12.2021 is marked and annexed as Annexure-A6)
That the Respondent No.1 filed the application for modification of the order dated 21.12.2021, however, the order was not modified and the eviction relief to the appellant was maintained by the Ld MM. (Copy of the order dated 18.05.2022 of Ld. MM, Dwarka Court is marked and annexed as Annexure-A7)
That on1st December 2021, 9th February 2022 & 15th Dec 2022the Appellant and Respondent No.2 filed the joint written statement to the applications of the Respondent No. 1. (The copy of the written statement to the applications of the Respondent is marked and annexed as Annexure-8)
It is relevant to mention that the Respondent No.1 filed a complaint and the first order dated 08th April 2022 is in complete contradiction to the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld District Magistrate. (Copy of the order dated 8.04.2022 of Ld. District magistrate is marked and annexed as Annexure-A9)
The first order dated 08.042022 was conclusive. The court proceedings were not kept on hold as mentioned by the respondent on her application dated 30th July 2022 to DM. The Ld District Magistrate DM heard both the parties in detail. Also, two rounds of Mediation happened. The conclusive order was given by looking into each and every aspect of the case and the order was absolutely fair & just. The overall District Magistrate court proceedings and District Magistrate order is misinterpreted by the respondent on her applications, post Ld District Magistrate order.
It is stated that vide order dated 08.04.2022 no eviction order was given to the appellant as no ill-treatment was established by the Respondent No 1. Appellant eviction relief under PWDV Act was taken into consideration. The point of the appellant matrimonial house was taken into consideration. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement of Vanitha vs DC was taken into consideration. The appellant and Respondent No. 2 was restrained from interfering with the rights of the Respondent No.1 over the property, which was fully honoured by the appellant & respondent no2. The order was with the condition that in case the order is not complied with by the appellant and respondent no2 then the respondent no1 has a right to approach the forum for exercising her relief. The first order dated 08.04.2022 was never breached by the appellant and respondent No2. Also pursuant to the order dated 08.4.2022 respondent no1 made no attempts to come and stay at the impugned property. Though the Respondent No.1 visited twice the property but that was with the intent to collect her personal belonging. It is stated that the Appellant & Respondent No.2 never interfered with the peaceful possession of the Respondent no1 and a CCTV footage and photos of her visit were submitted to Ld District Magistrate on 15th Dec 2022. (The CCTV footage and photos of the visit of Respondent No.1 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A11)
It is stated that when the New District Magistrate(“ hereinafter referred to as “ DM”)Mr. Hemant Kumar took the charge the respondent no 1 applied to new DM to review his predecessor Ld. District Magistrate Order dated 8th April 2022 on false ground & she misinterpreted the whole court proceedings on her applications. Post DM order dated 8th April 2022 Respondent no 1 wrote three applications dated 20th May 2022, 13th June 2022 & 30th July 2022.
It is stated that in the application the issues which were raised by the Respondent No.1 on her application dated 13th June 2022 were after thought and additional new facts which were a concocted story created by the Respondent No.1 and which came out of nowhere. These issues/facts are false and made up and brought to discuss after Ld District Magistrate first order dated 08.04.2022. These facts were never mentioned by respondent no 1 on her initial application and during the whole court proceedings and in two rounds of mediation.
The Mahila Court Order dated 18.05.2022 is not a ‘modified Order’ as presented and addressed by the Respondent No.1 on her application dated 20th May 2022, 13th June 2022 & 30th July 2022 to DM. The order itself says “in the absence of the complainant (Anju Mehta) the said application (for modification of order dated 21st December 2021) cannot be decided” Honourable Judge of Mahila court has maintained the same eviction relief order on both 21st December 2021 and on 18.05.2022 for appellant.
The Respondent No.1 is interpreting the Honourable Mahila Court Judge eviction relief order of the Appellant in a very wrong way. No where in the order it says that ‘Ld. MM has not restrained Senior Citizen Court from passing the final order of eviction’ as presented and mentioned by Respondent No.1 on her application dated 13.06.2022.
That Appellant never forced or compelled the Respondent No.1 to stay with her daughter as mentioned by the respondent on her application dated 13.06.2022 to DM. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent No 1 is staying with her daughter Mrs. Ruchi Sachdeva since April 2018. The appellant moved back to her matrimonial house in February 2021. The subject house was lying vacant and Respondent No.1was not staying there. The spending of her days at the house of her daughter is as per the sweet wishes of the Respondent No.1 herself and that under the influence of Mrs. Ruchi Sachdeva. It is important to highlight that respondent no 1mother also stayed with her. The Respondent No.1 is making the same choice as her mother & the appellant is not responsible for respondent no 1 choice.
It is also noteworthy to mention that the Respondent No.1 is staying with her daughter so under such circumstances, the Appellant can in no manner interfere with the peaceful possession of the Respondent No.1.
The Ld. District Magistrate vide order dated 15.12.2022 and 23.03.2023, the Ld. District Magistrate directed the Appellant and Respondent No.2 herein to vacate the property bearing No. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi within 30 days from 23.03.2023.
It is stated that with reference to District Magistrate’s order dated 15th December 2022 and order dated 23.03.2023, it is denied that the appellant has filed the DV case to avoid the eviction as mentioned on the Ld DM order dated 15th December 2022 and 23.03.2023. In fact, in the contrary, the Respondent No.1 is using the eviction under Senior Citizen Act as a countermeasure to the police complaint filed by the appellant for protection against the Respondent No.1 harassment and abuse. The appellant had filed the police complaint for Domestic Violence on 7th August 2021 vide Complaint number DD entry No. 77A at Janakpuri police station. Also at women cell complaint number 3628996 dated 06.08.2021. The Respondent No.1 filed for Appellant eviction at Senior Citizen Court on 06.09.2021.
It is further denied that the DV case is filed to ensure no eviction. It is completely a misleading statement on the DM order dated 23.03.2023 Before arriving to the such a conclusion it is very important to read and understand the Appellant DV application, which was not done. The appellant offered Ld. DM submitted her DV application but was not considered and the appellant eviction order was passed.
It is also denied that the police complaint was done only once. It is relevant to place on record that the Appellant has placed before the Ld DM the facts that On 06.08.2021, the Appellant first contacted the police. But the respondent no 1 continued harassing, abusing &forcing the appellant out of the house then the appellant filed the second police complaint on 7th August 2021.
That on 15.12.2022, the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District, the interim order dated 15.12.2022 in case bearing No.1/98/2021 titled "Raj Juneja Versus Ashish Juneja and Ors' whereby the Ld. District Magistrate has directed the Appellant herein to vacate the property bearing No. C-4A/35A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned property’) within 30 days. (The copy of the interim order dated 15.12.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A12)
It is stated that the Appellant filed an appeal under Rule 22(3) (4) of the Delhi Maintenance and welfare or parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner.
It is stated that since the appeal and the stay application was yet to be listed and the Appellant apprehended eviction in view of the District Magistrate’s order. For the forgoing reason, the Appellant filed the writ petition bearing No. 1253/2003 titled Anju Alias Juneja Vs Government NCT OF DELHI& ANR before the Hon’ble High Court. In the said petition the Hon’ble High Court gave interim protection to the Appellant that the Appellant shall not to evicted till the stay application is decided. The copy of the order dated 1st February 2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court (Copy annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-13)
It is stated that during the proceeding before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, the Appellant pointed out that the detailed order is yet to pass.
In the meanwhile on 23rd March 2023, the detailed order was passed by the Ld. District Magistrate Cum Appellant Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner.
It is denied that the appellant couldn’t establish any DV upon asking by Ld DM as stated in the interim order dated 15th Dec 2022 and order 23.03.2023. It is relevant to mention the matter with respect to DV is pending before the Ld MM Mahila Court for adjudication. Hence until the evidence is not concluded and the final verdict is not awarded by the Ld Mahila Court, it can not be established that the domestic violence did not take place on the appellant.
The order dated 23/03/2023 passed Ld. District Magistrate Cum Appellant Tribunal states that the Respondent No.1 is the sole owner of the house and she has the undisputed right to stay there without any disruption. It is imperative to place on record that the Respondent No.1 has not placed the correct fact before the Ld. District Magistrate Cum Appellant Tribunal Here it is pertinent to mention that the Respondent No.1 is not staying in the suit property since April 2018. It is also relevant to mention that the Appellants husband has a property at Gurgaon which belonged to the late father-in-law of the Appellant. The father-in-law died in the year April 2018 and pursuant to his death as per the Hindu Succession, the son has acquired 1/5th share in the property in Gurgoan and impugned property. Hence it is incorrect to state that the Respondent No.1 enjoys the ownership undisputed. The father-in-law has to spend certain amount on the impugned property which was not disclosed by the Respondent No.1. (Copy of the payment receipt paid by the appellant's father-in-law on the purchase of impugned property is marked and annexed as Annexure-A13.)
The written response and support of the appellant for the application of the Respondent No.1 dated 20.05.2022, 13.06.2022, & 30.07.2022 was not accepted by the DM on the court date, 28.11.2022. The Ld DM asked the appellant to submit it on 15.12.2022. On 15th Dec 2022, the same day the eviction order was given without considering the response & supporting of appellant. Copy of Joint Written Statement filed by the Appellant and Respondent No.2 on 15th Dec 2022 is marked and annexed as Annexure-A14.
The Ld DM judgement not only defeated the right of residence of the appellant under PWDV Act but also Made a statement beyond his jurisdiction.
Appellant is holding eviction relief under PWDV act which is ignored while giving the subject DM order. There is ongoing Domestic Violence case against the respondent no 1 at Dwarka Court.
The second family house in Gurugram was not taken into consideration by Ld DM before giving the eviction order. The said property is given on rent by the Respondent No.1 and the rent is being enjoyed by the Respondent no 1. Annexure 14
It is pertinent to mention that the respondent No.1 denied maintenance in front of the Ld DM earlier with the reason that she is financially independent as she has 3 source of earnings.
The whole purpose of the subject Senior Citizen case is to evict the appellant from her shared house and defeat her rights of residence in her matrimonial house. It is pertinent to mention the whole story of ill treatment is made up and not a single incidence of ill treatment is provided by the respondent no1 On the contrary the appellant is the victim of her in-laws atrocities.
The Domestic Voilence case against the respondent is in process.
In view of above, the Appellant has no other place to stay except her matrimonial house.
The provisions of the senior citizen Act 2007 have been manipulated to defeat the rights of the appellant.
The Supreme Court has time and time observed that the right of woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing and order of a eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the senior citizen Act 2007. As per the Supreme Court the summarised proceedings of Senior Citizen Act cannot evict the daughter-in-law.
The respondent no 1 is seeking eviction of the complainant from the house where she is not staying since April 2018. The subject house is also not a source of earning for the respondent no1. The respondent no 1 has denied the maintenance offered by the DM. The respondent no 1 mentioned she has three source of earnings (pension, husband pension & house rent of other family house). and she doesn’t need the maintenance.
That aggrieved by the orders passed by the Ld. District Magistrate the Appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
G R O U N D S
Because the Ld. District Magistrate passed an impugned order without assigning any reason whether Appellant and Respondent No.2 herein had harassed the Respondent No.1.
Because under the Act the Ld. District Magistrate is bound to verify whether the Senior Citizen was ill-treated/ not maintained by the son/daughter/legal heir. Reliance is placed on Arshya Gulati Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8801. The relevant portion of Arshya Gulati Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8801 has been extracted hereinunder for the convenience of this Hon'ble Court:
“68. …..While exercising the powers bestowed under the Act/action plan/rules, the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner ceases to be an administrative authority as understood in normal parlance (even Muugh there is no bar). He performs quasi-ficial functions as different from administrative functions. Further, the rules framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, indicates the parameters on which the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner shall act which includes, on an application by Senior Citizen/Parent(s) for eviction of his/her son, daughter or legal heir from his/her property (as defined under Section 20 of the Act of 2007), the District Magistrate, after getting the title of the property verified through SDM, and on consideration of the provisions of the Act of 2007, and forming an opinion that the son, daughter or legal heir are ill-treating him/her by occupying their property, after following the principles of natural justice by giving hearing to all persons concerned, pass an order of eviction."
Because neither section 27 nor section3 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 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. Reliance is 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.
BALD ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE
Because the Respondent No.1 filed similar complaint and vide order dated 08.04.2022, the Ld District magistrate passed a conclusive judgement looking at the facts and the circumstances. Pursuant the order dated 08.4.2022, the Respondent No.1 never stayed in the impugned premises and that no breach was carried out by the Appellant with respect to order dated 08.04.2022.
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the Respondents had failed to show any proof of ill-treatment at the hands of the Appellant and Respondent No.1.
Because the Ld. District Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has filed certain proofs which shows that the Appellant was treated with cruelty at the hands of the Respondent No.1.
Because the aforementioned fact concealed by the Respondent No.1 was necessary for the Ld. District Magistrate to just and fair adjudicate the rival contention of the parties before passing an order of eviction against the Appellant and Respondent No.2.
LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CANNOT DECIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS SHARED HOUSE HOLD OR NOT SUMMARILY
Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “S. Vanitha Vs The Deputy Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine 1023” 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. The relevant extract of the judgement in “S. Vanitha Vs The Deputy Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online 1023” has been produced herein under for convenience of the Court:
"This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted Under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the Civil Courts, Under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been explicitly barred Under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. However, the over-riding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 Under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act 2005. The PWDV Act 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged Under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act 2005. Section 26 of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present casewhere the suit premises are a site of contestation betweentwo groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to appropriately mold reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a 'shared household' Under Section 17 of the PWDV Act 2005. In the event that the "aggrieved woman obtains a relief from a Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, she shall duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act 2005, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act 2005. This course of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the PWDV Act 2005- of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realized. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is equitable ease in obtaining their realization"
FOR THAT the Respondents have admitted that the Appellant was living at the impugned property after her marriage and has been continuously living at the impugned property since February 2021, making the impugned property , matrimonial home of Appellant. Reliance is placed on Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja (AIR 2020 SC 5397).
IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT DEFEAT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER PASSED UNDER PWDV ACT, 2006
FOR THAT the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ritka Prashant Jasuni Vs Anjana Niranjan Jasani 2021 SCC Online Bom 1802 while replying upon S Vanitha(supra) has held that the under the ACT Ld. District Magistrate is required to deal with the contention of the daughter in law that the property in question is her shared household wherefrom she cannot be evicted. The relevant extract of the judgment in Ritika Prashant Jasani Vs Anjana Niranjan Jasani 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1802 has been extracted herein under for the convinence of the this Hon'ble Court:
"25. We further find that though the Tribunal had recorded that in the hearing respondent No. 2 had stated that frequent quarrels used to take place between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner und her husband for which reason she used to reside with her daughters, there it ne finding by the Tribunal to that effect or that petitioner and her husband did not maintain respondent No. 1. Tribunal merely said That it had formed an opinion that petitioner and her hand should improve their behaviour and that they should not quarrel with respondent No. 1. But that is not enough. In terms of section 9 of the 2007 Act, Tribunal must be satisfied that the parent has suffered neglect at the hands of the children or relatives or that they have refused to maintain the parent.
26. As we have already noticed, under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the 2007 Act, the Tribunal is mandated upon receipt of an application for maintenance to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to hold an enquiry for determining amount of maintenance. Though the procedure contemplated under the 2007 Act is summary in nature nonetheless Tribunal is required to find out as to whether the flat in question belongs exclusively to respondent No. 1 or it is an ancestral property where petitioner has also a right to ownership and/or residence through her husband. Tribunal is also required to deal with the contention of the petitioner that the flat in question is her shared household wherefrom the cat be evicted. As the Supreme Court has pointed out in Smt. S. Vanitha (supra), both parents/senior citizens and the daughter-in-law are vulnerable groups in the Indian context and for protection of their rights the 2005 Act and the 2007 Act have been enacted. It is in the backdrop of the above that the claims of the contesting parties would have to be decided which unfortunately does not appear to be the case in the instant proceeding.”
Because the Ld. District Magistrate ought not to have directed the Appellant to vacate the impugned property within 30 days, knowing that the time period provided for appellate remedy against such order itself is 60 days under the Act. Reliance is placed on Rakhi Sharma Vs State 2020 SCC OnLine SC 10231, Pooja Mehta & Ors Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P.(C) 7023/2020.
Any other ground which may be urged before this Hon'ble Court at the time of argument.
That the Appellant does not have any other efficacious or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 as amended till date.
That the Appellant has not filed any other/similar Appeal, Writor Petition either before this Hon'ble Court or in any otherHon'ble Court or Supreme Court of India for the same reliefsought.
P R A Y E R
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
Allow the present appeal and set aside the orders dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District, in the case bearing no, 1/98/2021 titled Raj Juneja Vs Ashish Juneja and Ors.
Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION SEEKING AD-INTERIM STAY ON THE OPERATION OF ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 OF LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IN CASE BEARING NUMBER 1/98/2021 TITLED RAJ JUNEJA VERSUS ASHISH JUNEJA AND ORS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
That the present Application is being filed on behalf of Applicant/Appellant seeking ad-interim stay on the operation of order dated 23.03.2023 of Ld. District Magistrate in case bearing number 1/98/2021 titled Raj Juneja versus Ashish Juneja and Ors. whereby the Ld District Magistrate has directed the Applicant/Appellant to vacate the property bearing No. C4A/35A Janakpuri, New Delhi(herein after impugned property) vide order dated 23.03.2023 directed thatthe Appellant shall vacate the impugned property within 30 days from the date of order.
The facts and grounds mentioned in the accompanying appeal filed under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 as amended till date seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District, in case bearing no 1/98/2021 titled " Raj Juneja versus Ashish Juneja and Ors., are being relied upon and may be read as part and parcel of the present application and are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity.
The Ld. District Magistrate has erred in arriving to conclusion that the Appellant has ill-treated the Respondent No.1 and has passed the eviction order without assigning any reason thereto.
That if the present application is not allowed the Appellant will be evicted from the impugned property and will effectively make the accompanying application infructuous.
That the present application is being filed in interest of justice and great prejudice and unrepairable damage may be cause if the present application is not allowed.
P R A Y E R
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
Grant ad-interim stay on the operation of order dated 23.03.2023 of Ld District Magistrate in case bearing number 1/98/2021 titled Raj Juneja Versus Ashish Juneja and Ors.
Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
BEFORE LD. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DELHI
APPEAL No. OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU JUNEJA …APPELLANT
V E R S U S
RAJ JUNEJA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING LEGIBLE/ MARGIN SMALL FONT DIM/ CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
That the accompanying appeal is being filed on behalf of Anju Juneja under Rule 22/3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 as amended till date seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, New Delhi District, in case bearing No. 1/98/2021 titled Raj Juneja Versus Anju Juneja and Ors.
That the averments and grounds mentioned in the accompanying Petition are relied upon and may be read as part and parcel of the present application and the same are not being reiterated herein for the sake of brevity.
That the Appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon the contents of the accompanying Petition in the present Application, and the same are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity.
That the present Application is being filed seeking exemption from filling certified copies of Annexures annexed to the accompanying Appeal in view of the urgency in moving the present Appeal. The Appellant undertakes to file certified copies of Annexures- Al to A5 as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court, upon obtaining a certified copy of the said annexures.
That the present Application is bona-fide and is in the interests of justice, and grave préjudice is likely to be caused in this event that the present Application is not allowed.
P R A Y E R
In view of the lacs and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
Exempt the Appellant/ Applicant from filing certified copies of Annexures-A/1 to A/5 annexed to the accompanying Appeal.
Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
New Delhi Date:
APPELLANT
Through Counsel for the Appellant
Dr Anupam Kumar Mishra (D/4972/2015)
Lexis and Company
A-1-B/26, Janakpuri,
New Delhi – 110058
9051112233
lexisdelhi@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment