Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
ANUKRITI DUBEY - Appellant
Versus
PARTHA KANSABANIK AND ANR - Respondents
RSA 42/2016
Decided on : 23-03-2016
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - TENANCY DISPUTE - [The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act)] - Section 17, Section 26 - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Domestic Violence Act in a tenancy dispute and the rights of a woman in a shared household. It highlights the limitations of the Act in relation to a landlord and the scope of relief available to an aggrieved person.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for possession and eviction against the appellant and her husband, claiming that the tenancy had expired and he wanted them to vacate the property. The appellant contested the suit, citing her rights under the Domestic Violence Act and challenging the use of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for passing a preliminary decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the tenanted premises constituted a shared household, but the rights under the Domestic Violence Act were not enforceable against the landlord. The Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts, affirming the suit for possession and eviction.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Domestic Violence Act in a tenancy dispute, the rights of the appellant as an aggrieved person, and the use of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for passing a preliminary decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rights of the appellant under the Domestic Violence Act could not be enforced against the landlord, and the suit for possession and eviction was justified under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC based on the clear and unambiguous pleadings of the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The present second appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-2, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in RCA No.34/2015 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.09.2015 in CS(OS) No.133/2015, allowing the suit of the respondent No.1 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, thereby entitling respondent No.1 to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant, was affirmed and upheld by the Appellate Court.
3. The respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.133/2015 for a decree of possession and eviction in his favour and against the appellant/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 (husband of the appellant) in respect of suit property No.F-71, DG(S) Apartments, Plot No.6, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi as well as for mesne profits. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the landlord and absolute owner of the property referred to above (hereinafter called the suit property), where husband of the appellant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.15,500/-. A tripartite agreement was executed with respect to the suit property for a period of 11 months, commencing from 15.03.2014, which agreement/lease expired on 15.02.2015. The respondent No.1/plaintiff, after the expiry of the lease deed, expressed his unwillingness to continue the tenancy of the husband of the appellant and wanted them (appellant and respondent No.2) to vacate the suit property. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice dated 07.05.2015 to the husband of the appellant, a copy of which was sent to the appellant as well, the suit property was not vacated. Instead, the appellant sent a notice to respondent No.1/plaintiff intimating him that the suit property would not be vacated because of matrimonial dispute between the appellant and her husband. A request also was made to continue the tenancy. The aforesaid notice was replied by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the negative.
4. Hence the aforesaid suit for eviction, possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages.
5. The husband of the appellant who was original defendant No.1 in the suit, filed his written statement stating that the possession of the suit property could not be handed over to the plaintiff as it was in sole possession of the appellant (defendant no.2) since September, 2014. It was also averred that all the dues till 14th of March, 2015, as agreed upon between the plaintiff and him vide email dated 10.02.2015 was paid. The plaintiff himself had given one month time to the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 for vacating the property.
6. The appellant (defendant No.2 in the original suit) contested the suit on the ground that she was a wife in distress who had been deserted by her husband/defendant No.1, who had left the shared tenanted household i.e. suit property for which a complaint dated 14.09.2014 was made to the SHO, Sector 23 Dwarka police station. It was also stated by the appellant in her written statement that several civil and criminal litigations were pending between her and her husband, including a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending adjudication before the Dwarka District Courts. In the aforesaid proceeding, the relief sought by the appellant/defendant No.2 for restraining her husband from dispossessing her till she moved into the jointly owned flat in Greater Noida and/or direction to her husband to pay rent and other dues till she was able to shift and remove her belongings to her jointly owned flat at Noida and for protection of her belongings till then, was rejected on the ground that it was for the landlord, in the event of the expiration of the lease of agreement, to consent for a fresh lease or agreement for continuing with the tenancy. The Domestic Violence Court expressed its inability and unwillingness to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
