Tenant remains liable for restoration of possession notwithstanding an estranged spouse’s exclusive physical occupation of the tenanted premises.

The Respondent (landlord) filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits against the Appellant (tenant) based on a registered lease deed dated 13.12.2021.

The lease was for 24 months at a monthly rent of ₹22,000.

The Respondent alleged non-payment of rent from June 2023.

The Appellant contended that the tenancy was determined by mutual verbal agreement in August 2023 and that he had been dispossessed since June 2022 because his estranged wife, Ms. Kirti Verma, had padlocked the premises and held the sole key.

The Appellant sought to implead his wife under Order I Rule 10 CPC, which the Trial Court dismissed.

Subsequently, the Trial Court passed a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, directing the Appellant to hand over possession and pay arrears/mesne profits.

The Appellant challenged this decree, arguing that triable issues existed regarding possession and the subsistence of the tenancy.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in passing a decree on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC when the tenant claimed to be out of physical possession.

2. Whether the possession of a premises by an estranged wife of a tenant constitutes juridical possession of the tenant, thereby precluding the need to implead her as a necessary party.

3. Whether the right of residence of a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be enforced against a third-party landlord in a tenancy dispute.

The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers the court to deliver judgment where admissions of fact are made either in pleadings or otherwise.

It relied on the "Doctrine of Privity of Contract" as elucidated in M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore (1969), holding that contractual liabilities cannot be shifted to third parties not privy to the agreement.

Furthermore, the court interpreted Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, regarding a wife’s right to residence in a shared household, noting that such a right is essentially limited against the husband and does not override the landlord's property rights.

The court found that the landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent were undisputed, satisfying the requirements for a decree under Order XII Rule 6.

It rejected the Appellant's defense that his estranged wife’s exclusive possession of the keys absolved him of liability.

The court reasoned that since the tenancy was a contract between the Appellant and Respondent, any family member (including a wife) residing in the premises does so through the tenant; thus, their occupation remains the "juridical possession" of the tenant.

Regarding the wife's right of residence, the court observed that while the DV Act protects estranged wives, it cannot be abused to defeat the rights of a third-party landlord, especially when evidence from the Local Commissioner suggested the wife was not physically residing in the property but had merely locked it.

The court concluded that the Appellant could not evade his contractual obligation to restore vacant possession by citing a matrimonial dispute.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment.

It affirmed the decree for recovery of possession, arrears of rent for the period 01.07.2023 to 31.12.2023 at ₹22,000 per month, and mesne profits at ₹25,000 per month from 01.01.2024 until the delivery of possession.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.