Termination of License by Owner Overrides Daughter-in-Law’s Right of Residence in Non-Shared Household

In brief

The question

1. Whether the suit property qualifies as a "shared household" under the Domestic Violence Act, thereby granting the Appellant a right of residence against the owner/mother-in-law.

The court held

The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the property was not a shared household and the Appellant’s right to occupy ended with the revocation of the license

It also directed

The Regular First Appeal (RFA 273/2020) was dismissed, and the Respondents were granted the right to seek possession of the property

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding a property in Ganesh Nagar-II, Delhi, which she purchased in 2013

p. 3, para 5

Respondent No. 1 alleged that the Appellant and her husband (Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 1) were inducted as licensees/tenants but failed to pay rent since 2013

p. 4, para 9

Respondent No. 2 made a statement supporting his mother (Respondent No. 1) and claiming he was ousted from the house by the Appellant

p. 5, para 12

The Trial Court passed an ex-parte decree for possession on 05.03.2019 after the Appellant failed to appear despite service

p. 5, para 13, 15

The Appellant challenged the decree, claiming the property was her "matrimonial home" and "shared household"

pp. 6, para 18-19

02Issues

i.1. Whether the suit property qualifies as a "shared household" under the Domestic Violence Act, thereby granting the Appellant a right of residence against the owner/mother-in-law.

p. 11, para 38

ii.2. Whether the Appellant, as a family member of a licensee whose license was terminated, has any independent right to continue in possession of the suit property.

p. 11, para 36 · p. 12, para 42

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding appeals from original decrees

p. 2, para 1

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, which holds that while a daughter-in-law has rights in a shared household, such rights do not operate indefinitely against a licensor/landlord, especially when the residence was not a shared household with the owner

p. 6, para 19 · p. 12, para 40

B.P. Achla Anand v. S. Appi Reddy, which establishes that a wife’s right of residence in a tenanted/licensed premises is co-extensive with her husband’s rights and cannot exceed them once his interest is terminated

p. 12, para 41

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 17

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the Respondent No. 1 purchased the property in 2013 for her own use, and the Appellant and her husband were merely inducted as licensees

p. 9, para 31 · p. 10, para 34

the court found that the Respondent No. 1 (owner) never resided in the suit property with the Appellant, meaning it did not constitute a "shared household" as defined by law

p. 10, para 34

The Court reasoned that once the license was terminated by the owner, the husband (Respondent No. 2) lost his right to occupy the premises, and consequently, the Appellant’s status became that of an unauthorized occupant

p. 11, para 37

The Court emphasized that while the Appellant has a right to seek maintenance or residence from her husband under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, she cannot assert an independent right against the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law when the license to occupy has been revoked

pp. 11, para 38-39 · p. 13, para 43

05Holding

The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the property was not a shared household and the Appellant’s right to occupy ended with the revocation of the license

p. 13, para 43

The Regular First Appeal (RFA 273/2020) was dismissed, and the Respondents were granted the right to seek possession of the property

p. 13, para 45

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF