Delhi High Court, in
the suit for possession filed by the Mother in law, has observed that the
mother in law being the owner of the property is not barred from
claiming eviction against her daughter in law where the residence is a
shared household.
The Court granted a decree of possession in
favour of mother in law and against the daughter in law and her mother,
while granting them three months’ time to vacate the premises.
In the instant case, suit was filed by the mother in law against the daughter in law and her mother. The son had expired on 29th September, 2020 while the daughter in law was living in the shared household since her marriage on 27th August, 2014.
Daughter in law claimed
that the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property, further
stating that the mother in law herself executed a registered Will dated 16th
December, 2019 acknowledging that the daughter in law had been residing
in the shared household along with her husband therefore entrusted the
property in equal shares to her daughter and her son.
The Court distinguished that even though the
mother of daughter in law had come to reside with her daughter in order
to comfort her, she had no right to continue to stay in the suit premises, once
the mother in law had expressed her desire that she should leave.
The Court was of the view that the mother of daughter in law had no right to either question the title of the mother in law, or assert the right to residence in the suit premises as she had no such rights to remain in the premises.
Regarding title of the property, daughter in law had made two conflicting statements in the court:
- That the mother in law executed a will bequeathing her property, and,
- That the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property.
It was also the case of the defendants that as the suit property was shared household of the daughter in law, the suit itself could not be instituted. However, mother in law had argued that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, a civil suit for possession is in consonance with the provisions of sec. 17 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Court iterated that the mere fact that premises take on the nature of shared household would not be a complete defence to a suit for possession filed by the owner of the property, being the in-laws of the aggrieved person, nor is such a suit barred.
“The protection under the DV Act assuring the residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household does not vest any proprietary or indefeasible right on the aggrieved person,” the Court observed.
“Nor does the right of residence allowed to aggrieved person extend to her insisting on the right of residence in a particular premises. Section 19 of the DV Act provides for an alternate accommodation being given to the aggrieved person of the same level in certain circumstances. Thus, it is clear that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it.” the court explained.
The Court added that by inducting her mother as well as her sister, the daughter in law had made an attempt to assert rights in respect of the suit property, which is clearly causing distress to the mother in law. Accordingly, the Court ordered that “The defendants are granted three months’ time to vacate the premises, subject to Covid-19 conditions, in which event, they can move the court for further time to vacate.”
.
.