Delhi District Court
Nisha Kannojia vs Vijay Kumar on 13 May, 2025
Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar
RCA SCJ No. 14/24
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PRIYA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
RCA SCJ No. 14/2024
CNR No. DLST03-001578-2024
Nisha Kannojia
W/o Sh. Jitender
R/o First Floor, 1240, Block D,
Gali No. 37, DDA flats,
Madangiri, New Delhi-62.
......... Appellant
versus
Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o, Ground Floor, 1240, Block D,
Gali No. 37, DDA flats,
Madangiri, New Delhi-62.
......... Respondent
APPEAL U/S 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED BY SH. PARAS DALAL, LD. ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC, SOUTH, SAKET COURT, IN CS NO. 1091/2022 TITLED AS "VIJAY KUMAR V. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR."
Page no.1 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 Order on Appeal
1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC South in Civil Suit No. 1091/2022 titled as "Vijay Kumar v. Jitender @ Jitu & Anr" whereby the Ld. Trial Court directed the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises i.e. First Floor of the property bearing number 1240, Block D, Gali No. 37, DDA flats, Madan Giri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") and also restrained her from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter 'appellant' and 'defendant no.2' are used interchangeably, and 'respondent' and 'plaintiff' are used interchangeably.
Brief facts
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent (plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court), who is the father-in-law of the appellant, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction seeking directions for the appellant (defendant no. 2 before Ld. Trial Court) and her husband (defendant no.1 before Ld. Trial Court), to vacate the suit property.
4. Respondent averred that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property, and is residing with his wife on the ground floor of the property whereas the appellant and her husband are residing on the first floor. Respondent averred that Page no.2 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 his son and appellant are rude towards him and his wife, and they are also not paying any maintenance to them. It is stated that the respondent got a public notice published in the newspaper disowning the appellant and her husband from his property.
5. Jitender @ Jitu (son of the respondent and husband of appellant) did not file his written statement before the Ld. Trial Court. Appellant in her written statement opposed the averments made in the plaint by stating that the suit filed by the respondent is an attempt by him and her husband (defendant no.1 therein) to dispossess her from the suit property. Appellant denied all the facts mentioned in the plaint and claimed that the suit property is her matrimonial home as she has been residing there with her husband (defendant no.1) since the solemnization of marriage.
Issues
6. Ld. Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues on 22.11.2023:
Issue No.1: Whether this court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as sought in prayer clause (a)? OPP Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as sought in prayer clause(b)? OPP Issue No.4 : Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of Page no.3 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 cause of action? OPD Issue No.5: Relief Evidence
7. In order to prove his case, respondent/plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Despite opportunity to lead evidence, appellant/defendant no.2 failed to examine any witness before the Ld. Trial Court and opportunity for the appellant to lead her evidence was closed on 03.08.2024.
Impugned Judgment
8. Ld. Trial Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had been able to discharge the onus to prove that the appellant was residing in the suit property merely as a licensee, and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment dated 03.09.2024.
Grounds of Appeal
9. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the appellant by stating that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the suit property constitutes the appellant's matrimonial home, and did not return any finding on this aspect.
10.Appellant stated that she was subjected to both mental and physical harassment at the hands of the respondent and his wife with the intent of unlawfully dispossessing her from her matrimonial home.
Page no.4 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24
11.It is stated that persistent campaign of intimidation not only infringes upon her rights but also contravenes the fundamental principles of justice and equity, which ought to prevail in the society. It is stated that conduct of the respondent is not only reprehensible but also actionable under law, which warrants appropriate redressal to protect the appellant's right and dignity.
12.Appellant stated that she is the daughter-in-law of the respondent, and is in continuous possession of the suit property i.e. her matrimonial home, since the day of solemnization of her marriage with son of the respondent.
13.It is stated that the appellant was even subjected to domestic violence by the respondent and his wife, and in this regard, a complaint was lodged before CAW cell on 13.01.2014. It is further submitted that on 03.08.2024, the right of the appellant to lead defence evidence was closed due to her non- appearance and in absence of any evidence on her behalf, Ld. Trial Court proceeded to decide the case which has caused grave injustice to her rights, and her right to defend the suit filed by the respondent stands infringed.
Reply of the Respondent
14.It is contended by the respondent that the appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed as the impugned judgment is based upon correct appreciation of Page no.5 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 facts and law. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court gave appellant sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness of respondent but despite various opportunities, appellant failed to cross-examine the witnesses.
15.It is stated that the appellant has miserably failed to establish any plausible reason or ground for challenging the judgment dated 03.09.2024. The impugned judgment is correct, well- reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Thus, the appeal be dismissed.
16.I have heard rival contentions of the parties, and gone through the Trial Court Record.
Analysis
17.Present suit is filed by a father-in-law against his daughter-in- law (appellant) and son, claiming possession of the suit property. However, appellant has pleaded a specific case that she is lawfully residing in the suit property, which is her matrimonial home, and has a right to reside in it.
18.In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the 1 (2021) 1 SCC 414.
Page no.6 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of "respondent" under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law." (emphasis supplied)
19. The aforesaid position of law has also been reaffirmed in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi2. In the light of these judgments, it is clear that a wife is also entitled to claim right to reside in a shared household belonging to the relatives of the husband, and merely because a house does not belong to the husband or is not 2 (2022) 8 SCC 90.
Page no.7 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 taken on rent by the husband, it will not extinguish the right of a wife to seek residence in such a shared household.
20. It is also pertinent to refer to the case of Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha3, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son's/ daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to 3 (2019) 265 DLT 211.
Page no.8 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24 be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son's family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
21.Thus, while passing an order of eviction of a daughter-in-law, balance has to be struck between the right of parents-in-law to recover possession from her, and rights of daughter-in-law to seek residence.
22.Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the Ld. Trial Court erroneously proceeded on the incorrect interpretation of law that a daughter-in-law has right to seek residence in the property of her husband alone and not that of his parents under any circumstances. Ld. Trial Court has applied the law as laid down in the case of SR Batra v. Taruna Batra4, which has since been overruled by the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja5, as discussed above. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the right of appellant to reside in the suit property being a shared household as per the latest prevailing law.
4 (2007)3 SCC 169.
5 Supra note 1.
Page no.9 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24
23. The Ld. Trial Court failed to examine appellant's right to seek alternative suitable accommodation, and also did not return any finding or give any consideration to the existence of, or absence of, any collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.2, and its consequent effect upon her rights.
24. Besides, Ld. Trial Court proceeded to finally decide the relief of injunction by applying the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is trite that this test finds application and relevance only at the interim stage while considering grant of temporary injunction, and is not to be applied at the time of final disposal of a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court committed grave error by deciding the issues regarding permanent and mandatory injunction on the basis of the triple test, thereby applying incorrect law while finally deciding the suit.
Conclusion
25.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears to be a fit case for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
26. Resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2024 passed by Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC South, Saket, New Delhi is set-aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court for deciding it afresh in terms of the observations made in the present order.
Page no.10 of 11 Nisha Kannojia v. Vijay Kumar RCA SCJ No. 14/24
27. Nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to court's observations on the merits of this case.
28. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 26.05.2025.
29. Appeal stands disposed off. No order as to costs. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order.
30. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA PRIYA
Date:
PRIYA 2025.05.13
16:00:52
NEHA PRIYA +0530
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/13.05.2025 Announced by me in the open court today on 13.05.2025. All the eleven pages of this order have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
PRIYA PRIYA 2025.05.13 16:00:55 +0530 NEHA PRIYA Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/13.05.2025 Page no.11 of 11