The judgment established that the DV Act does not entitle a party to resist eviction and clarified the legal principles regarding corporate ownership and shared household status.

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 27th August, 2015 in Civil Suit No.55/2014 of the Court of Additional District Judge-02 (ADJ), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a decree for possession on admissions in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the two respondents/defendants for ejectment of the respondents/defendants from property No.12A/3, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation.

2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued. The counsels for the two respondents have been appearing.

3. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent no.2 Ms. Ekta Puri (wife of respondent no.1) were heard yesterday and have been further heard today. The occasion for hearing the counsel for the respondent no.1 who supports the petitioner/plaintiff has not arisen.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises, pleading i) that the petitioner/plaintiff had let out the property aforesaid to the respondent/defendant no.1 by a lease deed 1st June, 2013 for a period of 11 months at a rent of Rs.35,000/- per month; ii) that the period of lease expired on 30th April, 2014 and no fresh lease deed had been executed; iii) that the petitioner/plaintiff called upon the respondent/defendant no.1 to vacate the premises but the respondent/defendant no.1 had not done so.

5. The respondent/defendant no.1 filed a written statement pleading that the respondent/defendant no.2 was his wife and though the respondents/defendants were residing in the property but their relationship had deteriorated and the respondent/defendant no.1 had vacated the property in October, 2013 and it was the respondent/defendant no.2 only who was continuing to reside in the property.

6. The respondent/defendant no.2 also filed a separate written statement pleading, i) that the respondent/defendant no.1 was and even then a Director of the petitioner/plaintiff and which fact had been suppressed; ii) that the petitioner/plaintiff is a company controlled entirely by the respondent/defendant no.1 and his family members; iii) that the issue of residence of the respondent/defendant no.2 in the subject property was sub judice before two separate forums and the subject suit was an offshoot of the matrimonial litigation between the respondents/defendants; iv) that a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) filed by the respondent/defendant no.2 against the respondent/defendant no.1 and her in-laws was pending adjudication before the Metropolitan Magistrate; v) that there was already an injunction in favour of the respondent/defendant no.2 and against the respondent/defendant no.1 qua the property; vi) that the subject property is a “shared household” of the respondents/defendants within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act; vii) that the title of the petitioner/plaintiff over the property is denied for want of knowledge; viii) that the petitioner/plaintiff is controlled completely by the respondent/defendant no.1 who is a shareholder/Director therein; ix) that even if the respondent/defendant no.1 has now recused himself from Directorship of the petitioner/plaintiff, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent/defendant no.1 are the Directors and shareholders of the petitioner/plaintiff; x) that the lease deed between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant no.1 is nothing but a sham document tailored to provide concealment of income and associated tax benefits to the respondent/defendant no.1; xi) that the subject property being a shared household and for all practical purposes being owned by the respondent/defendant no.1, the respondent/defendant no.2 has full rights to re