Smt Bhawna Gupta vs Smt Usha Gupta & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 28 March, 2026
st
Pronounced on: 1 June, 2026
+ RFA 273/2020, CM APPL. 28948/2020 & 29143/2020
SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
W/o Sh. Mukesh Gupta
R/o 3rd Floor, Part of 44A,
Khasra No. 1060/497,
Ganesh Nagar -II Extension,
Shakarpur, Village Mandawali, Fazalpur,
Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi.
.....Appellant
Through: Ms. Charu Ambwani, Advocate with
Appellant in person.
versus
1. SMT. USHA GUPTA
W/o Late Shri Madan Lal Gupta
R/o 3750, Kucha Parmanand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
2. SH. MUKESH GUPTA
S/o Late Shri Madan Lal Gupta
Office at: DD Express, Shop No. 33,
Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi.
R/o 3750, Kucha Parmanand,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Agarwal, Mr. Manuj
Kaushik and Mr. Karan Ahuja,
Advocates for R-1 and Respondent
No.2 through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
RFA 273/2020 Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the
Appellant/Defendant No.2, Smt. Bhawna Gupta against ex-parte Judgment
and Decree dated 05.03.2019, whereby the Civil Suit of the
Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 Smt. Usha Gupta for Possession and Permanent
Injunction, has been decreed.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent Usha Gupta had filed Suit bearing CS
No.629/17 for Possession and Permanent Injunction.
3. The facts, in brief, are that Defendant No.1/Respondent No. 2 Mr.
Mukesh Gupta is son of Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 Smt. Usha Gupta, who
got married to Defendant No.2/Appellant Ms. Bhawna Gupta on
18.02.2003. After their marriage, Defendants started living with the
Plaintiff, in her rented accommodation. Because of the conduct and attitude
of Defendant No.2/Appellant Ms. Bhawna Gupta, who was non-cooperative,
selfish and cruel since the beginning, Defendants shifted to rented
accommodation somewhere in Nangloi, from September 2004 to January
2005. From January 2005 to July 2007, they shifted to accommodation at
Burari, Delhi with rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month. Subsequently, they shifted
to Shakarpur with rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month.

4. However, Defendant No.1 found the rent exorbitant and was unable to
pay it from his meager income. Moreover, he had minor daughter and he
was unable to meet the expenditures of the family. He was also not having
good health and was suffering from various ailments.
RFA 273/2020 Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

5. In the meanwhile, the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 and her husband
rd
purchased immovable Property bearing No.3 Floor of 44A, Khasra
No.1060/497, Ganesh Nagar-II Extension, Shakrapur Village, Mandawali,
Fazalpur, Ilaqua Shahdara, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as suit property )
on 13.05.2013.
6. Because of the pressure of Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff and her
husband, allowed the Defendants to reside in the Suit Property, on license
basis. A Rent Agreement dated 01.02.2014 was also executed, whereby the
monthly rent was agreed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Defendant
No.1/Appellant adhered to this Agreement and paid the rent regularly to the
Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1.
7. However, greed of Defendant No.2/Appellant did not stop and time
and again she would lament about Defendant No.1 not earning enough and
was unable to fulfill her greed. She used to pressurize Defendant No.1 to put
pressure on the Plaintiff to transfer the Suit Property in her name. Defendant
No.1 conveyed the request to the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1, but she
declined, as she was of old age and she along with her husband, was residing
in a rented accommodation. The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1’s husband earlier
used to work in Rajasthan, but because of deteriorating health was unable to
earn and had no source of income except his Government Old Age Pension.
Because of these reasons they were unable to reside in rented
accommodation and wanted the possession of their own Property.

8. There was constant pressure made by the Defendant No. 2/Appellant
on the Defendant No. 1/Respondent No.2 to pressurize the
Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 to transfer the Suit Property in the name of
Defendant No. 2/Appellant but the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 declined to do
RFA 273/2020 Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

the same. It later transpired that Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 had been
thrown out of the house, by Defendant No.2/Appellant on 21.01.2014.
Defendant No.1used to often reside with the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 or
in the house of relatives, friends or even at his place of work. Defendant
No.2/Appellant exclusively resided in the Suit Property of the Plaintiff since
21.02.2014 and Defendant No.1 had been made to leave the Suit Property.
9. The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 claimed that Defendants had not
tendered a single penny towards rent, since December 2013. Only because
of the indifferent attitude of the Defendants, she debarred the Defendant No.
1/Respondent No.2 from her movable and immovable Property through
publication in the Newspaper on 19.07.2017.
10. The Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 claimed that she and her husband, are
senior citizens and their Property has been illegally occupied by Defendant
No.2/Appellant. They also found out that one room had been sub-let by
Defendant No.2/Appellant, which was fetching good income, though the
Plaintiff has not been able to ascertain the name and rate of rent of this sub-
tenant.
11. The Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 further asserted that the rent has not
been paid since December, 2013 till August, 2017 i.e. for 46 months.
Therefore, the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 served a Legal Notice dated
28.07.2017 terminating the tenancy of the Defendants, from 15.08.2017.
However, despite Notice, neither the Suit Property was vacated nor the
arrears paid. Hence, the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 filed the Suit for
Possession of the Suit Property and also for Permanent Injunction to
restrain the Defendants from creating any third-party rights.
RFA 273/2020 Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

12. Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 appeared in the Court and made a
statement on 06.12.2018, that his mother was an absolute owner of the Suit
Property. He also stated that there were matrimonial disputes between him
and Defendant No.2 (his wife) and that Defendant No.2/Appellant was
residing alone in the Suit Property while he had been thrown out of the
house. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the Suit Property and
was not residing there.
13. Defendant N o. 2/Appellant , despite service of summons by affixation
on 06.12.2017, failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte on
23.04.2018 .
14. The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 Smt. Usha Gupta in support of her
case examined herself as PW-1 and proved the Rent Agreement Ex.PW-
1/B, and Legal Notice Ex.PW-1/E.
15. Learned District Judge on appreciation of the evidence, made a
reference to the case of S.R. Batra and Another vs. Tarun Batra ,(2007) 3
SCC 169 and Shobha Gupta vs. Rajesh Gupta , MAT.APP.63/2004, to hold
that Defendant No.2/Appellant had no right, title or interest to continue in
the suit premises. Consequently, the Suit of Possession was decreed in
favour of the Plaintiff, vide against ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated
05.03.2019.
16. Aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated
05.03.2019, present Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant / Defendant No.2 Smt. Bhawna Gupta.
17. The grounds of challenge are that the Suit for Possession has been
filed in collusion and connivance between the Respondents herein, to
dispossess the Appellant from the Suit Property since there exists a
RFA 273/2020 Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

matrimonial dispute. The impugned ex-parte Judgment ought not have to be
passed, as she was not adequately served on the address mentioned in the
memo of parties. As per the Report of Process Server, summons had been
returned unserved.
18. It is further asserted that it has been claimed that Defendant No.1/
Appellant has been debarred by Ms. Usha Gupta, but it is only on paper, in
order to deny any right to the Appellant. The Appellant being daughter-in
law, has a right to reside in the matrimonial household, even if it is owned
by the mother-in-law, Plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 Smt. Usha Gupta. She
cannot be dispossessed from the Suit Property on the grounds that it is not
her matrimonial household.
19. Learned District Judge wrongly placed reliance on S. R. Batra
( supra ), which stands over-ruled by the Judgment dated 15.10.2020 passed
by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2483/2020 titled as Satish Chander
Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja , which permits the daughter-in-law to reside in the
matrimonial home, even if it is owned by her in-laws.
20. The Appellant got the knowledge of the impugned ex-parte Judgment
on 28.09.2020 when she got the copy of the impugned ex-parte Judgment in
the Execution Petition No.123/2020 . The Appellant had visited the Court
premises for filing the Execution Petition against Respondent No.2 in
respect of the Orders of maintenance and it was only then, that copy of the
impugned ex-parte Judgment was made available to her. The official copy
of the summons for the Execution Petition No.123/2020 has not been served
upon her. She has been contesting the Maintenance proceedings and was not
aware of the pendency of the present Suit.
RFA 273/2020 Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

21. She has no independent source of income and is financially dependent
on her father, for her day-to-day expenses. Respondent No.2 / husband has
not been regular in paying the maintenance as has been directed by the
learned Family Court. There are four Execution Petitions filed against the
husband and it is only in compliance of the Orders of the Court, that some
maintenance is paid. Defendant No.1 claims that she has no alternative place
of residence and owns no immovable property. She has not initiated any
other matrimonial proceedings and wishes to reside with her husband and
his family. However, it is the aim of Respondents, who have connived to
throw the Appellant out of her matrimonial household.
22. Respondents have neither visited the Suit Property nor do they
maintain it. The Suit Property is occupied by the Appellant and her minor
child. Therefore, she cannot be dispossessed from the Suit Property it being
her matrimonial household. Respondents are residing together in a house
owned by Smt. Usha Gupta in Darya Ganj, Delhi and not in rented premises.
Smt. Usha Gupta cannot dispossess the Appellant from her matrimonial
home. Therefore, prayer is made that impugned ex-parte Judgment be set
aside.
23. Respondent No.1 Smt. Usha Gupta, in her Reply to the Appeal , has
asserted that she is the owner of the Suit Property and Appellant/daughter-
in-law along with her husband had been inducted in the suit premises as
tenants with a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, no rent was paid by
the Appellant and her husband / Defendant No.1 (Plaintiff’s son), since
December, 2013.
RFA 273/2020 Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

24. It later transpired that Defendant No.1 had been forcibly evicted from
the suit premises and Appellant was residing alone in the Premises. She had
been duly served, despite which she failed to appear and contest the Suit.
25. It is claimed that the Appellant is a cruel, greedy and selfish lady, who
has been living exclusively in the property of Plaintiff, Smt. Usha Gupta.
Smt. Usha Gupta , Plaintiff had filed Suit bearing No.840/2017 under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the Appellant
Smt. Bhawna Gupta and Shri and Smt. Triloki Nath (parents of the
Appellant).

26. The husband of Respondent No.1 Smt. Usha Gupta expired on
24.02.2020. She herself is a senior citizen residing in the tenement premises
with her elder son and suffers from serious ailments; and for her survival,
her elder son always carries an Oxygen cylinder. There is no source of
income after the demise of her husband. They are having huge financial
crisis.
27. Smt. Usha Gupta has claimed that the Suit Property is not a
matrimonial home in terms of the Judgment dated 15.10.2020 passed by the
Apex Court in Satish Charider Ahuja (supra). She has further asserted that
she had purchased the Suit Property from her own funds and it is not a joint
property or purchased from ancestral funds. She claims that there is no
shared household and her son / Defendant No.1 had been inducted as a
tenant in the Suit Premises and Defendant No.2 had been residing with him
as a family member. She further claims that there is no merit in the present
Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
RFA 273/2020 Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

28. This is another unfortunate litigation between the mother as the
Plaintiff and her son and daughter-in-law as Defendants. The son Mukesh
Gupta had appeared in the Court and gave a statement on 06.12.2018 that he
has been forcefully thrown out of the suit property by his wife Bhawna
Gupta/Defendant No.2 on 21.02.2014. Since then, he has been living with
the relatives or in different premises on rent. He further stated that he had
nothing to do with the Suit property.
29. The Defendant No.2 Bhawna Gupta was duly served, but she failed to
appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The Suit in favour of the Respondent
was decreed ex-parte.
30. Admittedly, Mukesh Gupta, son of the Respondent got married to
Bhawna Gupta on 18.02.2003 and they came to reside with her, in the rented
accommodation. However, because of the in-cooperative attitude of Bhawna
Gupta who treated the Respondent with a cruel and selfish manner, they
were unable to continue to reside together and the son and daughter-in-law
shifted to rented accommodation in September, 2004 and resided in the
rented premises till July, 2007. However, because Mukesh Gupta found the
rent to be exorbitant and unable to discharge his obligations including
towards the daughter in his meager income, he shifted back to the house of
the Plaintiff with her permission in July, 2007.
31. The Respondent further deposed that she purchased the Suit property
on 13.05.2013. On receiving assurances from Bhawna Gupta, she allowed
the Defendants to reside in the Suit premises on license basis, though she
also got a Rent Agreement dated 01.02.2014 executed for a monthly rent of
Rs.3,000/- per month.
RFA 273/2020 Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

32. From the unrebutted testimony of the Respondent, it emerged that she
herself was in rented accommodation at the time of marriage of the
Appellant and her son, in 2003 and after marriage they all had started
residing together in rented premises. However, because of the conduct of
Bhawna Gupta, the son and the daughter-in-law separated and lived in
different rented premises. However, they shifted back to the residence of
the Respondent in July, 2007.
33. Another significant fact which has emerged is that the suit property
had been purchased by respondent, on 13.05.2013 and on the request of the
son, he had been allowed to occupy the property, on license basis. It also
emerges from her testimony that she by way of abundant caution and to
secure her rights, also got a Rent Deed dated 01.04.2014 executed from her
son. It reflects that the Defendants had been inducted as licensees, but the
Rent Deed was merely an additional document which was never acted upon
by the parties.
34. From the testimony of the Plaintiff, it also emerged that the Suit
property was not a shared household, as the Respondent never lived with
her son and daughter-in-law in the said property. Moreover, it had been
purchased much later in 2013. It is clear case where the son and daughter-
in-law had been inducted as licensees, by the Respondent/Plaintiff.
35. The Plaintiff/Respondent in her testimony had further deposed that
the Appellant Bhawna Gupta started pressurizing her son Mukesh Gupta to
get the property transferred in her name, to which Mukesh Gupta did not
agree which led to constant quarrels inter-se the parties. Eventually, Mukesh
Gupta was forced to vacate the suit property on 21.01.2014, though the
Appellant continued to reside in the Suit property. This further stands
RFA 273/2020 Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

corroborated by the statement of Mukesh Gupta, which was recorded in the
Court on 06.12.2018.
36. The entire testimony therefore, establishes that Mukesh Gupta had
been inducted as a licensee who started residing in the property along with
his wife Bhawna Gupta and child. However, because of the conduct of the
Appellant, the Plaintiff terminated the license and asked the Appellant to
vacate the property. It is clearly evident that it is a simplicitor case of the
Appellant being a licensee in the property, but she lost the license when the
owner/Plaintiff asked her to vacate the Suit property. Once the license got
terminated, the Appellant was left with no right, title, interest in the Suit
property and had no option but to vacate the premises.
37. Even if for the sake of arguments, the Rent Deed is considered, then
too, once the son in whose name the alleged tenancy was created, vacated
the premises, the status of the Appellant, became that of an unauthorized
occupant, liable for eviction. Any right of residence is against the husband
and not against the mother-in-law.
38. The only aspect which needs to be considered is whether the Suit
property can be termed as a shared household. There is ample evidence on
record that the property was purchased in 2013, after which, on the request
of Mukesh Gupta he along with his family had been inducted as a licensee.
There was no shared household nor was the Appellant entitled to any
protection under the law. Whatever rights she has of residence are
provided in Section 17 Domestic Violence Act and her rights, are essentially
against her husband.
39. In this regard, it may be noted that she has already filed a
Maintenance Petition, wherein she is being granted maintenance. The
RFA 273/2020 Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

Appellant has an absolute right to seek residence or maintenance from her
husband but in the facts and circumstances of this case where it is clear that
a license was created in favour of the son and the Appellant was in
occupation of the Suit property merely as a family member, she cannot
assert any independent rights by claiming the Suit property to be a shared
household.
40. In this regard, it would be pertinent to refer to the case of Satish
Chander Ahuja (supra) , wherein the rights of a woman were extensively
discussed and it was held that where the shared household of a woman is a
tenanted/allotted/licensed accommodation, which is in the name of husband/
father-in-law or any other relative, the Domestic Violence Act does not
operate against the landlord/ the lessor and licensor. However, if such
proceedings are shown to be collusive between the son and the mother, the
woman who is living in the shared household may resist the proceedings on
the ground which a tenant/licensee can take in such proceedings. The
embargo under Section 17(2) of 2005 Act is only to save the person from
being evicted without following due process of law.
41. It would also be pertinent to refer to B.P. Achla Anand vs. S. Appi
Reddy &Anr . 2005 (3) SCC 313, wherein the right of a deserted wife in
respect of tenanted premises was considered, and it was held that a deserted
wife continuing in occupation of the premises obtained on lease by her
husband which was their matrimonial home, occupies the possession akin to
that of a heir of the tenant-husband, in case the right of residence has not
come to an end. However, the tenant having lost his interest in protecting
the tenancy rights as available to him under the law, the same right would
devolve upon and inhere on the wife, so long as she continues in occupation
RFA 273/2020 Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53

of the premises. Her rights and obligations shall not be higher or larger than
those of the tenant himself.
42. Herein, once the license of the husband itself has been terminated, no
better protection can be accorded to the Appellant.
43. In the present case, as it may be reiterated that firstly it is not a shared
household; and secondly , the license stood revoked by the mother-in-law in
respect of her self-acquired suit premises. The learned District Judge though
has considered the right of a woman under shared household under
Domestic Violence Act, but has rightly observed that the
Respondent/Plaintiff was entitled to a Decree of Possession and the Suit was
accordingly, decreed.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit
in the present case and the Appeal is hereby, dismissed.
45. The Appeal is disposed of along with the pending Application(s).


(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 1, 2026/ R/VA
RFA 273/2020 Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:02.06.2026
13:16:53