Daughter-in-law can be evicted from senior citizen father-in-law’s home if due process is followed and alternate accommodation is secured, Delhi HC rules

Respondent No. 1, Ashok Nigam, instituted a suit for possession, injunction and damages against the appellant, his daughter-in-law, and Respondent No. 2, his son, concerning property bearing No. Q-2A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi.

The property had originally belonged to Respondent No. 1’s father and was subsequently mutated in Respondent No. 1’s favour after obtaining no-objection certificates from his siblings; Respondent No. 1 claimed absolute ownership and regularly paid property tax.

The appellant married Respondent No. 2 on 30 May 2009 and thereafter resided in the property, which she claimed was her matrimonial home and a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

Following matrimonial discord, the appellant filed proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. Respondent No. 2 left the property in 2012 and shifted to rented accommodation, while the appellant continued to occupy the suit property.

In her written statement and affidavit of admission and denial, the appellant admitted documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1, including the mutation letter, no-objection certificates and affidavits of the legal heirs.

The learned Additional District Judge held that Respondent No. 1’s ownership stood admitted and decreed possession against the appellant on 1 December 2021.

During the appeal, the High Court directed that the appellant should not be rendered shelter-less and recorded Respondent No. 2’s undertaking to pay ₹35,000 per month towards alternate accommodation until disposal of the inter se matrimonial proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 deposited rent for one year, but allegedly made no further payments after 30 September 2023.

Whether the decree for possession passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was justified on the basis of the appellant’s alleged admissions regarding Respondent No. 1’s ownership?

Whether the pendency of the partition suit concerning the title to the property prevented the civil court from granting possession to Respondent No. 1?

Whether the appellant’s status as a woman residing in a “shared household” under Sections 2(s) and 17 of the DV Act conferred an indefeasible right to continue residing in the suit property?

Whether eviction could be granted consistently with the appellant’s statutory right to residence, provided alternate accommodation or rent was secured under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act?

The Court applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC, under which judgment may be entered on clear, unequivocal and unconditional admissions.

It held that a mutation entry by itself neither creates nor extinguishes title, as mutation is ordinarily fiscal in character; however, an admitted document and admitted pleadings may furnish the basis for a decree.

Under Sections 2(s) and 17 of the DV Act, a woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in a shared household irrespective of her proprietary interest, but Section 17(2) protects her only against eviction otherwise than through legally established procedure.

Relying on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja , (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Court held that a shared household may include premises belonging to or occupied by the husband’s relatives, while proceedings by an owner, landlord or licensor for eviction are not barred.

Relying on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner , (2021) 15 SCC 730, it held that the appellant’s residence rights under the DV Act must be harmonised with the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully.

Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act permits the right of residence to be secured through comparable alternate accommodation or payment of rent rather than continued occupation of the specific shared household.

The Court found that the appellant had expressly admitted Respondent No. 1’s ownership-related documents and pleadings; therefore, the decree was founded on her admissions rather than on the mutation entry alone.

The pending partition proceedings between Respondent No. 1 and his siblings did not create a triable title dispute between Respondent No. 1 and the appellant, who had entered the property solely through her marriage to Respondent No. 2 and claimed no independent proprietary interest.

Although the property constituted the appellant’s shared household, that status did not confer ownership or an absolute right to remain in the premises.

Respondent No. 1 was a senior citizen, Respondent No. 2 had lived separately since 2012, and the continued occupation involved prolonged matrimonial and family litigation.

A civil suit for possession constituted due process under Section 17(2) of the DV Act.

The appellant’s residence entitlement was consequently to be secured against her husband through comparable alternate accommodation or rent under Section 19(1)(f), rather than by compelling the aged father-in-law to permit her continued occupation.

The Court preserved the ₹35,000-per-month alternate-accommodation arrangement to prevent the appellant from becoming shelter-less.

The Court held that the appellant’s status as a resident of a shared household did not create an indefeasible right to remain in the property, and that eviction pursuant to the civil decree satisfied the requirement of due process.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to clear the arrears of ₹35,000 per month towards alternate accommodation expeditiously and, in any event, within four weeks of the appellant vacating the suit property, and to continue paying ₹35,000 per month until disposal of the inter se matrimonial proceedings.

The quantification and recovery of arrears were left to the pending execution proceedings.