A spouse has the right to contest eviction proceedings affecting their residence based on legal recognition of shared household rights.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

RFA 868/2025 & CM APPL. 58060/2025 (stay)

2. The present regular first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) has been filed by the appellant against the Final Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Impugned Judgment’) and Order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CS 4285/2024 titled Ajay Sharma v. M/s Asian Hotels (East) and Anr.

3. Vide Order dated 29.03.2025, the application preferred by the appellant under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking her impleadment in the eviction suit filed by Respondent No. 1 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed.

4. Vide the impugned Final Judgment dated 26.04.2025, the above captioned civil suit, filed by Respondent No. 1 was decreed in his favour under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, without impleading the appellant herein as a necessary party.

5. After decreeing of the suit vide impugned judgement and decree, Respondent No.1 filed an execution petition before the learned execution court wherein the learned court had issued warrants of possession of the tenanted premise (suit property) against the judgement debtor therein vide Order dated 10.09.2025.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has filed the present regular first appeal.

7. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present appeal arises, the appellant, who is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent No. 3, has been living in the tenanted premises (suit property) along with Respondent No. 3 in joint family.

8. The suit property was taken on lease from respondent no.1 under a registered lease deed dated 15.02.2019, executed for a period of five years with respondent no.2/company, wherein respondent no.3 is stated to be the Joint Managing Director.

9. The aforesaid registered lease deed allegedly expired on 31.01.2023. Allegedly, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the lease deed is being continued orally as per an understanding between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, on Respondent no. 3 making the continued payment of rent on his own and residing therein along with the appellant .

10. Admittedly, the appellant and Respondent No. 3 are having multiple litigation including a litigation under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘DV Act’), which was filed on 07.02.2023 by the appellant against Respondent No. 3.

11. Vide Order dated 29.10.2024, this Court in Crl. Rev. P. 1246/2024, wherein the Respondent No. 3 had assailed the Order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Mahila Court in said DV Act proceedings filed by the appellant, had granted interim protection to the appellant to reside in the shared household, which at the time being was the tenanted premise (suit property) in the present appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the wife of Respondent No.3, who is the Joint Managing Director of Respondent No.2 company, to whom the tenanted premise (suit property) had been given by respondent no.2/tenant, for residential purposes. It is urged that Respondent No.1 and respondent no.3/husband are acting in collusion with the object of evicting the appellant from the suit property and shifting her to an accommodation of a lower standard. Reliance is placed upon the o