Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Shalu, W/o Sh. Munish Kumar Lakhina - Appellant
Versus
Meera Batra, W/o Shyam Batra - Respondents
RSA 22 of 2022, CM APPL. 9470-9471 of 2022 & 40208 of 2024
Decided On : 05-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohammad Sajid and Mr. Abdullah Bin Masood, Advocates with Appellant in person.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Pulak Gupta Joshi and Ms. Payal Rajput, Advs.

A licensee occupying a third-party relative’s property does not gain a right of residence as a 'shared household' in the absence of a direct domestic relationship with the owner, and the owner is entitled to possession upon the legal termination of the license.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Scope - Appellate jurisdiction in second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law; interference is not warranted where findings of fact regarding ownership and the status of an occupant as a licensee have been concurrently upheld by lower courts. (Paras 30, 57)

(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 26 - Reliefs in other legal proceedings - While courts may consider orders passed under the relevant legislation in civil proceedings, this does not grant a right of residence over a property owned by a third-party relative where no domestic relationship exists between the owner and the occupant. (Paras 52-53, 56)

(C) Property Law - Licensee - Termination of license - Where an individual is permitted to occupy a property as a licensee, the termination of said license requires the occupant to vacate; the status of an accompanying family member of the licensee becomes unauthorized upon the revocation of the permission to reside, rendering them liable to eviction. (Paras 48, 55)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, established as the sole owner of the property through a testamentary document, sought a mandatory injunction for the eviction of her brother and his wife, who were permitted to occupy the premises as licensees. The brother vacated the property, but his wife refused to comply, claiming a right of residence asserting the premises to be a shared household. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The courts concurrently held that the plaintiff held valid title to the property and that the defendants were permissive users. The absence of a domestic relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant-occupant precluded the classification of the property as a shared household, confirming the plaintiff's right to regain vacant possession.

Issues: The main issues were whether the occupation of the property constituted a shared household providing a right of residence to the defendant, and whether the judgment below was collusive or legally erroneous in its application of domestic protection principles within a civil suit for possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A property remains private property and does not constitute a shared household unless a direct domestic relationship exists between the owner and the occupant. When the permissive license to occupy a property is lawfully terminated by the owner, any occupancy by the licensee or their family members becomes legally untenable and subject to eviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of permissive license and ownership of suit property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. allegations of domestic violence, collusive litigation, and rights to shared residence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
3. procedural issues and evidentiary record before the trial court. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. prior findings on absence of domestic relationship preventing shared household claim. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. termination of license rights and the scope of domestic violence act in civil proceedings. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
6. final adjudication on lack of substantial question of law for second appeal. (Para 57 , 58)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant No.2, against the Judgment dated 22.11.2021, whereby the learned ADJ has upheld the Judgment of learned Civil Judge dated 18.11.2020 decreeing the Suit for Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, thereby directing the Defendants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit property to the Plaintiff and also restrained the Defendants for creating third party interest, in the Suit property.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Meera Batra filed a Suit No.609518/2016 for Mandatory Injunction against the Defendants/Appellants directing them to remove their belongings from the Suit property and to hand over the Possession and for Permanent Injunction for restraining them from creating third party interest.

3. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, Smt. Meera Batra is the owner of Property bearing No.2-A/44, Ground Floor and Second floor along with roof rights, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The property originally belonged to her mother Smt. Maya Devi and devolved upon her by virtue of Will dated 06.02.2012, after her demise on 20.05.2012.

4. The Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 Munish Kumar Lakhina is the brother of the Plaintiff, who after the demise of the mother, requested the Plaintiff to be permitted to reside in the Ground Floor portion, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’). The Plaintiff keeping in view the relationship with the Defendant No.1, permitted him to occupy the Ground Floor as a licensee.

5. In October, 2012 Defendant No.1 got married to Defendant No.2/Appellant Smt. Shalu and they both started residing together in the Suit property. However, both Defendant No.1 and 2 started harassing the Plaintiff and other family members and threatening them to transfer the property in the name of the Defendants.

6. Since the Suit property in terms of the Will and was also for the benefit of the daughter of Defendant No.1 from his first marriage, the Defendant No.2 started harassing, humiliating and threatening the daughter to such an extent that she is now in the custody of the Plaintiff.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiff was not interest in keeping the Defendants as a licensee and issued a Legal Notice dated 02.07.2015, asking them to vacate the Suit premises. It was further stated that in case they failed to vacate, they would also be liable to play damages, mesne profits for illegal use and occupation.

8. The Notice was duly served upon the Defendants, despite which they failed to hand over the Possession to the Plaintiff. Instead Defendants called Property Dealers on 15.07.2015 and tried to create third party interest in the Suit property, though they did not succeed because of the timely intervention of the Plaintiff and other respectable persons.

9. Hence, the Plaintiff file the Suit for Mandatory Injunction for seeking possession of the Suit property and Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendants from creating third party interest in the Suit property.

10. The Defendant No.1 Munish Ku

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, J.Shalu, W/o Sh. Munish Kumar Lakhina - AppellantVersusMeera Batra, W/o Shyam Batra - RespondentsRSA 22 of 2022, CM APPL. 9470-9471 of 2022 & 40208 of 2024Decided On : 05-06-2026

A licensee occupying a third-party relative’s property does not gain a right of residence as a 'shared household' in the absence of a direct domestic relationship with the owner, and the owner is entitled to possession upon the legal termination of the license.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Shalu, W/o Sh. Munish Kumar Lakhina - Appellant
Versus
Meera Batra, W/o Shyam Batra - Respondents
RSA 22 of 2022, CM APPL. 9470-9471 of 2022 & 40208 of 2024
Decided On : 05-06-2026