The Delhi High Court has upheld an eviction order against a woman and her son from a Safdarjung Enclave property owned by her in-laws, observing that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be converted into a forum for deciding inheritance and property disputes.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the plea filed by Ritu Taneja and her son against the order directing them to vacate the property owned by the elderly parents of her late husband.
Background of the Case
According to the case records, Ritu Taneja married Pankaj Taneja in 2000 and began residing at the family property in Safdarjung Enclave after marriage. Following the death of her husband in February 2020, disputes arose between her and her in-laws over property, financial claims, and family assets.
Her in-laws approached authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging harassment and seeking eviction from the property. Initially, the District Magistrate directed the petitioners to vacate only the ground floor portion. Both sides later challenged that order before the Divisional Commissioner.
The Divisional Commissioner eventually ordered eviction from the entire property, holding that relations between the parties had become extremely bitter and cohabitation was no longer possible.
Petitioners’ Stand
The petitioners argued that the house was their “shared household” and claimed that the family assets were connected to ancestral business interests in which the deceased husband had contributed for years. They also alleged entitlement to LIC benefits and other financial assets.
Ritu Taneja further denied allegations of ill-treatment and claimed she had cared for her mother-in-law, who was allegedly suffering from mental illness. She accused the in-laws of filing multiple false police complaints to force her eviction.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are meant to protect elderly citizens and ensure peaceful enjoyment of their property, not to decide complicated civil disputes involving inheritance or ownership claims.
“The dispute is, in substance, civil in character, and cannot be adjudicated within the summary jurisdiction contemplated under the Senior Citizens Act,” the Court observed.
The Court also referred to Supreme Court rulings dealing with the balance between a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a shared household and the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property.
Justice Kaurav noted that the petitioner was a government school teacher earning a stable income and was not without means or shelter. The Court also took note of submissions that an alternate accommodation at Khirki Extension was already in her possession and that the in-laws were willing to hand over related property documents and two Faridabad plots after the premises were vacated.
Decision
Refusing to interfere with the eviction order, the High Court held that no illegality or perversity was found in the order passed by the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court directed the in-laws to deposit documents relating to the alternate accommodation and Faridabad properties before the Divisional Commissioner within 30 days.
The petitioners were directed to vacate the Safdarjung Enclave property within 45 days thereafter.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Ritu Taneja & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12721/2023
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: May 8, 2026
