The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in filing a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) cannot by itself prevent a senior citizen from claiming relief under the Act. The bench, led by Justice Sachin Datta, observed that even if an elderly person does not promptly lodge a complaint but instead waits—perhaps hoping for a reconciliation or improvement in treatment by their children or legal heirs—that delay does not disqualify them from seeking the protection the statute provides.
In the case before the court, a senior citizen’s father had challenged an appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner’s authority, which had overturned a previous eviction order against his daughter, her husband, and their children, who were living on the second floor of his property. The property was originally allotted to him by the Delhi Development Authority, and in 2014 he had permitted his daughter and her family to reside on the upper portion as licensees, formalising the arrangement with a rent agreement. Over time, however, he alleged that he and his wife had suffered mistreatment and harassment from the occupants, compelling him to file a complaint under the Senior Citizens Act.
The Appellate Authority had rejected his complaint in part because he had not taken any action from 2014 until he filed the statutory complaint. It concluded that he could not establish the required “ill-treatment” or non-maintenance by his legal heirs, since he had not approached the police or any other authority earlier. But the High Court disagreed with that reasoning. It emphasized that the Rules made under the Act do not demand that a senior citizen prove, as a pre-condition, that they have suffered ill-treatment or non-maintenance over a precise or recent period before making a complaint. The court found that rejecting relief solely because of the gap in time overlooks the realities faced by elderly people, who may delay seeking legal recourse in the hope that family relations will improve, or because they wish to reconcile first before taking formal steps.
Importantly, the High Court rejected the daughter’s argument that the father lacked the necessary “title” over the portion of the property occupied by her family, which she claimed precluded him from seeking eviction under the Act. The court held that the father’s consent to her residence as a licensee, and his continued ownership, did not bar his invocation of the statutory scheme for protection. Recognising the father’s right under the Act, the court set aside the impugned appellate decision and directed the daughter and her family to vacate the second floor.
In addition to ordering their eviction, the court restrained them from harassing or abusing the senior citizen and his wife while they remained on the premises, until the date of vacation. The judgment underscores that the Senior Citizens Act is meant as a protective measure and should not be denied to eligible elderly persons simply because they did not immediately initiate formal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.