Delhi High Court: In a writ, related to the interpretation and application of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the Act’) in the context of a property dispute, filed challenging decision of respondent 1 which directed the the District Magistrate, New Delhi, to adjudicate on an application filed by respondent 3 under the Senior Citizens Rules, 2016, Subramonium Prasad, J., while dismissing the petition, observed that the forum under the Act do not have jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and that the purpose of the Act is maintenance of the senior citizen and to ensure their welfare
Background
The genesis of the dispute lies in a property situated in Village Munirka, Delhi, originally owned by the mother (Respondent No.3) and later inherited by son (Ajay Tokas), the husband of Petitioner No.1. Following the demise of Ajay Tokas, disputes arose regarding the property’s ownership between the petitioners and respondent 3. Subsequently, respondent 3 filed an application under the Senior Citizens Act, alleging non-maintenance and ill-treatment by the petitioners and seeking their eviction from the property.
The District Magistrate issued an interim order in favour of respondent 3, prompting the petitioners to file an appeal challenging the decision. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, leading the petitioners to seek relief from the High Court.
The crux of the petitioners’ argument lies in their contention that until the resolution of the property’s title dispute, the application under the Act should not be entertained. They maintained that jurisdiction under the Act does not extend to deciding property titles and that such disputes should be resolved by competent Courts.
Decision and Analysis
In its decision, the Court highlighted the overarching objective of the Act, emphasizing its commitment to providing maintenance, medical facilities, and protection to senior citizens. The Court remarked, “The purpose of the Senior Citizens Act is to provide for an appropriate mechanism to be set up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens.“
The Court emphasized the distinction between the jurisdiction conferred by the Act and the resolution of property title disputes, stating that while the Act focuses on the welfare of senior citizens, property disputes fall within the purview of competent Courts. The Court elaborated, “A reading of the Act makes it clear that the forum under the Act do not have the jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and the purpose of the Act is maintenance of the Senior Citizen and to ensure their welfare.”
Additionally, the Court highlighted the procedural aspects outlined in Section 6 of the Act, stressing the importance of adhering to due process and fair inquiry.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s decision, directing the District Magistrate to conduct a fresh inquiry and decide the matter in accordance with the law. The Court affirmed the need for proper procedures and protection of senior citizens’ welfare, dismissing the petition in line with the decision of the lower forums.
[Manju Tokas v. Government (NCT Of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3974, Decided on 24-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners: Rajul Jain
Advocate for the Respondent: Avishkar Singhvi, ASC, Naved Ahmed, Vivek Kumar Singh
