Delhi District Court
Shakuntla Devi Verma vs Shikha Verma on 21 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.A No. 79/16, Old No. 18/16 & Case No. 54323/16.
In the matter of :
Shakuntla Devi Verma
W/o Sh. Laxmi Narain Verma,
r/o 90 Extn. 1B, Nangloi,
Delhi 110041.
............ Appellant.
VERSUS
1. Shikha Verma,
W/o Sh. Vikas Verma,
r/o 90 Extn. 1B, Nangloi,
Delhi 110041.
2. Baby Kanishka,
D/o Sh. Vikas Verma,
Through her mother/guardian
Ms. Shikha Verma.
............. Respondents.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.04.2016
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 21.11.2016
DATE OF DECISION : 21.11.2016
JUDGEMENT
1. This is an appeal against order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the ld. MM. Vide which the ld. MM has restrained the appellant from interfering, disturbing the joint possession of the respondents in the property comprising of H. No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi which is shared household of the respondent no. 1.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2016, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that she is owner of the property located at H. No. 90 C, Extn. 1B, Nangloi Jat, Delhi (herein after suit property) and her son Vikas C.A No. 79/16, Old No. 18/16 & Case No. 54323/16. Page No. 1 of 4 Verma and respondent no. 1 are residing as a licensee only. The appellant's son and his family members refused to vacate the suit property and appellant filed a civil suit bearing No. 280/15 for mandatory and permanent injunction which is pending in the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge. The son of the appellant took separate accommodation on rent and shifted there but respondent no. 1 did not vacate the suit property and continued to occupy the same. Appellant has also annexed copy of rent agreements as Annexure P2 & P3. It is mentioned that order dated 14.03.2016 passed by Ld. MM is illegal. The suit property is acquired property of the appellant and the appellant's son and respondent no. 1 were residing there as a licensee. The son of the appellant has shifted to a rented house but respondent no. 1 has refused to vacate the suit property. Ld. MM has wrongly declared the suit property as a shared household and passed restrain order against the appellant not to disturb the possession of respondent no. 1 in the suit property. It is also mentioned that house belongs to appellant cannot be treated or cannot be said to be a shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is prayed that order dated 14.03.2016 be set aside.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel for the respondents at length and perused the record of this court as well as trial court record very carefully.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued on the lines of appeal and prayed that appeal be allowed. He has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Harish Chand Tandon v. Darpan Tondon & Anr." CS (OS) 1738/2013.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 14.03.2016 and the same be affirmed.
C.A No. 79/16, Old No. 18/16 & Case No. 54323/16. Page No. 2 of 4
4. I have perused the record. Perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that respondents have filed a petition u/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant and others. In para no. 7 of the petition, it is mentioned that all the respondents are living jointly in the property bearing No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi and the complainant No. 1 is in domestic relations with the respondent no. 1.
In reply to the this para, it is mentioned that the contents of para 7 of the application are wrong and vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 4 is in the domestic relationship with the petitioner or other respondents. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 i.e. sister in law of the complainant is a married women and is residing in her matrimonial home separately from the complainant and the other respondents. In this para appellant has not denied that respondent no. 1 is not residing in the shared household. In the entire reply, the appellant has not denied any where that respondent no. 1 is not residing in property No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi from the date of her marriage. Appellant has no where pleaded that she is owner of the property and the respondent no. 1 was not residing in the property as a shared household.
5. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further reveals that it is not pleaded by the appellant that respondent no. 1 was not residing in shared household nor any document regarding ownership of the property has been placed on record by the appellant. It is also not pleaded that husband of respondent no. 1 is residing separately in rented accommodation. Appellant has placed on record two rent agreements, one is dated 29.12.2015 to the effect that her son Vikas Verma is residing as a tenant in other property. This rent agreement is dated 29.12.2015 and reply to the application u/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic C.A No. 79/16, Old No. 18/16 & Case No. 54323/16. Page No. 3 of 4 Violence Act, 2005 is dated 10.12.2015. At no point of time, the appellant has mentioned in para no. 7 of the reply that husband of the respondent no. 1 is residing as a tenant. She has also annexed another rent agreement dated 18.03.2016. As the impugned order is dated 14.03.2016 but at no point of time this fact was submitted before the Trial Court that son of the respondent no. 1 was residing separately. It is not denied that respondent no.1 since her marriage is residing at property No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi. Ld. MM has right held that property No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi is a shared household.
6. The judgment titled as "Harish Chand Tandon v. Darpan Tondon & Anr." CS (OS) 1738/2013 is not helpful to the appellant in the facts of the present case as appellant did not plead before the Ld. Trial Court that house is not share household and and respondent no. 1 is residing separately as a tenant.
7. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that property No. 90, Extn. 1B, Nangloi, New Delhi is a shared household. The appeal filed by the appellant is without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) on 21.11.2016. ASJ05 (West)/THC/Delh C.A No. 79/16, Old No. 18/16 & Case No. 54323/16. Page No. 4 of 4