O R D E R

03.11.2026

CRL.M.A. 34225/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 3418/2026

3. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“a. Quash & Set Aside the Order dated 23.10.2026 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-2, North-West District, Rohini Courts in Complaint No.21185 of 2016 (DV Act) in case titled as Priya Bhatia Vs. Amit Bhatia, whereby allowing Respondent No.2 to enter in the premises 20, Chander Lok Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, as an alternate accommodation, which belongs entirely to the Petitioner being the absolute owner of the same.”[Emphasis Supplied]

4. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.10.2026 has passed an order in favour of respondent no. 2 herein permitting her to enter House No. 20, Chander Lok Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 [‘House No. 20 at Pitampura’], as an alternate accommodation due to her imminent eviction from Flat No. 156, Dhundiyal Apartment, Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 [‘Flat No. 156’]. This petition has been filed aggrieved by the said direction.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are married to each other. He states that petitioner is the father of respondent no. 3 and father-in-law of respondent no. 2.

5.1. He states that it is a matter of record that respondent nos. 2 and 3 stopped residing at House No. 20 at Pitampura since February 2010 and have since then lived separately from the petitioner.

5.2. He states that the details of the homes and cities, Bangalore, Mumbai where the petitioner respondents have lived separately since the year 2010 are duly mentioned on record.

5.3. He states that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were last residing together at Flat No. 156 w.e.f. April, 2013 and have continued to stay there uninterruptedly till October, 2026.

5.4. He states that respondent no. 3 presently resides at Pune, at the address given in the memo of parties.

5.5. He states that after the passing of the impugned order, respondent no. 2, on 24.10.2026, along with her two children, has entered House No. 20 at Pitampura.

5.6. He states that the petitioner is 91 years old, the absolute owner of House No. 20 at Pitampura and lives at the house.

6. Mr. Tarun, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, submits that the last rental payable for Flat No. 156 was Rs. 27,500/- per month. The impugned order of the trial Court records that respondent no. 3, who was paying the rental of the flat at Pitampura until 25.09.2025 stopped paying the rent. This led to an eviction decree being passed in favour of the landlord. He states that the eviction decree was passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC on the admission of respondent no. 3.

7. This Court had put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner herein is willing to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 27,500/- to respondent no. 2 to enable her to continue to reside at the said flat or take another flat of equal standard. The matter was passed over to enable the counsel to take instructions.

8. At pass-over stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 27,500/- per month to respondent no. 2. In addition, the petitioner undertakes to deposit an advance rental amount equivalent to six months’ rent for respondent no. 2.

8.1. He states that the rent equal to six months can be paid to respondent no. 2 immediately within 24 hours.

8.2. He states that respondent no. 2 has yet to vacate Flat No. 156 and can use the payment to clear the arrears and future rent.

9. In response, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that respondent no. 2 has vacated Flat No. 156 and has handed over the keys to the landlord Mr. Manjit Singh Sahni.

10. This fact or submission of respondent no. 2 is specifically disputed by learned counsel for respondent no. 3, who is present in Court.

1