“It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 has exclusive rights in the tenement which is allowed to be occupied by the petitioner and his family members by the respondent no.1. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 has filed several police complaints against the petitioner and his family members in various police stations alleging harassment and other offences. The complaints filed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been dismissed not on merit but for default.”

Further, the court looked at the harassment meted out to Lilabai by Dattaray and his family in her own home. Lilabai, in her complaint, stated that Dattarya and his family members used to beat her causing injuries on her body. In fact, a complaint filed by Lilabai before LT Marg Police Station states that the petitioner and his wife used to beat and abuse her regularly.

“The provision of Section 4 of the said Act permits such application for eviction of child and grandchild if the condition set out in that provision read with other provisions are satisfied. In my view, there is thus no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of eviction cannot be passed by the Tribunal under Section 4 of the said Act read with other provisions of the said Act,” the court said.

The court accepted the argument advanced by Lilabai’s counsel and held that the tribunal indeed had such jurisdiction to evict Dattaray and his family from the house exclusively owned by Lilabai.

“The principles of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin & Anr. Vs. Jhabbu Lal & Anr. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. In my view, no child can compel his parents and more particularly senior citizen to allow such child or grandchild to stay with him.”

Thus, the court upheld the order of the tribunal and directed to Dattaray and his family members to evict the said premises within two weeks of the order.