Mother In Law Being Owner Not Barred From Claiming Eviction Against Daughter In Law Where Residence Is A Shared Household: Delhi High Court
"Shared household would not per se be complete defence to suit for possession filed by owner of property."
In the facts of a case for possession of property, the Delhi High Court has observed that the mother in law being the owner of the property is not barred from claiming eviction against her daughter in law where the residence is a shared household."Where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her...
In the facts of a case for possession of property, the Delhi High Court has observed that the mother in law being the owner of the property is not barred from claiming eviction against her daughter in law where the residence is a shared household.
"Where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it," Justice Asha Menon observed.
The Bench thus granted a decree of possession in favour of a mother in law and against the daughter in law and her mother, while granting them three months time to vacate the premises.
Background
The case arose out of a civil suit seeking possession, damages and permanent injunction with regards to a property wherein the mother in law claimed to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the property.
The suit was filed by the mother in law against the daughter in law and her mother. The son of the plaintiff had expired on 29th September, 2020. The daughter in law had come into the suit premises after her marriage on 27th August, 2014.
It was the case of daughter in law that the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property. It was further stated that the mother in law herself executed a registered Will dated 16th December, 2019 acknowledging that the the daughter in law had been residing in the shared household along with her husband therefore bequeathing the property in equal shares to her daughter and her son.
Findings
The Court noted that even though the mother of daughter in law, defendant no. 2, had come to reside with her daughter in order to comfort her, she had no right to continue to stay in the suit premises, once the mother in law had expressed her desire that she should leave.
The Court was of the view that the defendant no. 2 had no right to either question the title of the mother in law, or assert the right to residence in the suit premises as she had no such rights to remain in the premises.
On the issue of title of the property, the Court noted that the daughter in law had made two conflicting statements: (i) that the mother in law executed a will bequeathing her property, and (ii) that the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property.
"Here, the defendants have admitted to the existence of the Relinquishment Deed and the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. Merely raising the bogey of a life interest does not detract from the admissions made, thus acknowledging the exclusive title of the plaintiff to the suit property. The documents as noticed have never been challenged and the raising of pleas that are untenable leading to a fruitless enquiry in trial should be avoided," the Court said.
It was also the case of the defendants that as the suit property was shared household of the daughter in law, the suit itself could not be instituted. However, the plaintiff had argued that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, a civil suit for possession is in consonance with the provisions of sec. 17 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Court therefore reiterated that the mere fact that premises take on the nature of shared household would not per se be a complete defence to a suit for possession filed by the owner of the property, being the in-laws of the aggrieved person, nor is such a suit barred.
"The protection under the DV Act assuring the residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household does not vest any proprietary or indefeasible right on the aggrieved person," the Court observed.
It added:
"Nor does the right of residence allowed to aggrieved person extend to her insisting on the right of residence in a particular premises. Section 19 of the DV Act provides for an alternate accommodation being given to the aggrieved person of the same level in certain circumstances."
"Thus, it is clear that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it."
The Court added that by inducting her mother as well as her sister, the daughter in law had made an attempt to assert rights in respect of the suit property, clearly causing distress to the mother in law.
"In view of the clear facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to seek possession of the suit premises from the two defendants without the rigours of an unnecessary and prolonged trial at her age," the Court said.
Accordingly, disposing of the matter, the Court ordered thus:
"The defendants are granted three months time to vacate the premises, subject to Covid-19 conditions, in which event, they can move the court for further time to vacate."
Case Title: MADALSA SOOD v. MAUNICKA MAKKAR & ANR.