Facts
Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding a property in Ganesh Nagar-II, Delhi, which she purchased in 2013
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Respondent 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
Source reference: p. 4, para 9Respondent No. 2 made a statement supporting his mother (Respondent No. 1) and claiming he was ousted from the house by the Appellant
Source reference: p. 5, para 12The Trial Court passed an ex-parte decree for possession on 05.03.2019 after the Appellant failed to appear despite service
Source reference: p. 5, para 13, 15The Appellant challenged the decree, claiming the property was her "matrimonial home" and "shared household"
Source reference: p. 6, para 18-19Issues
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.
Source reference: p. 11, para 382. 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.
Source reference: p. 11, para 36; p. 12, para 42Law Applied
The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding appeals from original decrees
Source reference: p. 2, para 1Satish 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
Source reference: p. 6, para 19; p. 12, para 40B.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
Source reference: p. 12, para 41Reasoning
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
Source reference: p. 9, para 31; p. 10, para 34the 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
Source reference: p. 10, para 34The 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
Source reference: p. 11, para 37The 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
Source reference: p. 11, para 38-39; p. 13, para 43Holding
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
The Regular First Appeal (RFA 273/2020) was dismissed, and the Respondents were granted the right to seek possession of the property
Source reference: p. 13, para 45Original Court PDF
Smt Bhawna GuptavsSmt Usha Gupta & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in