The Delhi High Court in Piare Khan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. held that delay by a senior citizen in filing a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot, by itself, be a reason to refuse relief like eviction of children or legal heirs from the senior citizen’s property. Justice Sachin Datta explained that many senior citizens initially tolerate harassment and delay approaching authorities, hoping their children will improve or that family disputes will resolve through reconciliation, and this human tendency cannot be used to defeat the statutory rights granted to them under the Act and Rules.
In this case, the petitioner‑father had been allotted the property by the Delhi Development Authority in 1976, and in 2014 he permitted his daughter, son‑in‑law and their two children to occupy the second floor as permissive licensees, also executing a rent agreement for that purpose. Over time, he alleged ill‑treatment towards himself and his wife and eventually approached the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act seeking eviction of the daughter’s family from the second floor; an order of eviction was initially passed in his favour. On appeal, however, the appellate authority interfered with that order by relying on the fact that for several years after allowing them to reside there, the father had not gone to the police or any authority, and by treating the absence of proven ill‑treatment or non‑maintenance as fatal to his claim.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning and clarified two important legal points: first, neither the Act nor the Delhi Rules impose any limitation that a senior citizen must act immediately or lose the right to seek relief; and second, they do not make it a mandatory pre‑condition that the senior citizen must establish ill‑treatment or non‑maintenance in order to obtain an order of eviction. The Court noted that the scheme of the Senior Citizens Act is welfare‑oriented and designed to protect the life, dignity and peaceful possession of property of senior citizens, and therefore must be interpreted in a manner that facilitates, rather than restricts, effective remedies for them. The judge also rejected as “misconceived” the daughter’s contention that the father lacked the necessary title over the first or second floor of the house to invoke the statutory mechanism, holding that once the property was allotted to him, he could use the Act in respect of all its portions.
On this basis, the High Court set aside the impugned appellate order that had nullified the eviction, thereby restoring substantive relief in favour of the father. It directed the daughter and her family to vacate the second floor of the property and, until they actually move out, restrained them from engaging in any abusive behaviour or harassment towards the petitioner, thus granting both eviction relief and interim protection to ensure the senior citizen’s safety and dignity.
About the Author
Aditi Anil Bhoyar is a final-year B.A.LL.B. student at Manikchand Pahade Law College, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra. Deeply passionate about law and its impact on society, she aims to bridge legal knowledge with real-life issues. Through her writing and future work, she hopes to contribute meaningfully to justice, fairness, and public awareness.