The Delhi High Court ruled that a daughter-in-law cannot continue occupying a property owned by her sister-in-law once her husband’s permission to stay ends. The Court said any claim for residence or alternate accommodation must be pursued against the husband, not the property’s owner.
The Delhi High Court has held that a daughter-in-law cannot continue occupying a property owned by her sister-in-law after her husband’s permission to stay there has been withdrawn.
The Court observed that any claim for residence or alternate accommodation must be pursued against the husband and not against the sister-in-law who owns the property.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while dismissing a second appeal filed by Shalu against her sister-in-law Meera Batra.
The dispute concerned a property located in Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. Meera Batra claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a Will executed by her mother, Maya Devi, on February 6, 2012. After Maya Devi’s death on May 20, 2012, the property devolved upon Meera Batra.
According to the case, Meera’s brother, Munish Kumar Lakhina, had been allowed to reside on the ground floor of the property as a licensee. Following his marriage to Shalu in October 2012, the couple started living together in the premises. Meera alleged that the couple began harassing her and other family members and attempted to force a transfer of the property in their favour.
Subsequently, Meera served a legal notice dated July 2, 2015, terminating their permission to stay in the property and demanding possession. When the premises were not vacated, she filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunctions.
In her defence, Shalu argued that the property was her matrimonial home and that she had a right to reside there. She alleged that the suit was collusive and filed by her husband and sister-in-law to deprive her of her residential rights. She also challenged the validity of the Will through which Meera claimed ownership.
The Trial Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of attesting witnesses to the Will, and concluded that Maya Devi had validly bequeathed the property to Meera Batra. The court further held that Shalu could not claim protection under the concept of a shared household because she had never shared a domestic relationship with Meera Batra.
The suit was accordingly decreed and Shalu was directed to hand over possession of the property while being restrained from creating any third-party rights in it.
The first appellate court upheld these findings, prompting Shalu to approach the Delhi High Court through a Regular Second Appeal.
Before the High Court, Shalu contended that the lower courts had wrongly relied upon principles under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She argued that the property constituted her matrimonial home and that the courts had failed to properly appreciate her residential rights.
After examining the record, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the ownership of Meera Batra over the property stood duly established. The Court observed that Munish Kumar Lakhina himself had admitted that he was merely a permissive occupant and had already vacated the property.
The Court explained that Shalu had entered the premises only because her husband was residing there with the permission of the owner.
While analysing her right to continue occupying the property, the Court made a crucial observation,
“Once, the right of the Munish Kumar itself was terminated and he also vacated the premises, the status of the Appellant becomes no better than that of a trespasser and she is liable to vacate the property.”
The Court further agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the property could not be treated as a shared household in relation to Meera Batra because Shalu and Meera never lived together as members of a common household.
Rejecting the argument that the courts had improperly considered provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the High Court observed that Section 26 of the Act expressly permits reliefs under the legislation to be considered in other legal proceedings as well.
The Court stated,
“The learned Civil Judge as well as learned District Judge had merely considered the law to consider if any kind of protection can be granted to the Petitioner, but on the facts of the case, none was found to be available to her.”
Addressing allegations of collusion between the brother and sister, the Court found no material to support such a claim. It noted that the key facts regarding ownership of the property and the permissive nature of the occupation were not disputed.
The High Court further observed that marital disputes between husband and wife cannot be used to deprive a lawful owner of her property rights.
In one of the most significant observations of the judgment, the Court held,
“Therefore, once, she has already resorted to the requisite relief, her remedy lies against her husband and not against the Plaintiff who happens to be the sister of her husband. The discord inter-se the husband and the wife cannot become a penalty for a sister-in-law, who in good faith, had permitted them to occupy her Suit property.”
Finding no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, the Delhi High Court dismissed Shalu’s challenge and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
The ruling reiterates that a daughter-in-law cannot claim an independent right to remain in a property owned by her sister-in-law merely because she resided there with her husband.
The Court clarified that any residence-related remedies arising from matrimonial disputes must ordinarily be enforced against the husband and not against relatives who independently own the property.
Case Title: Shalu v. Meera Batra & Anr. (RSA 22/2022)