Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. D.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, has submitted that the application was liable to be dismissed as the defendants had specifically disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and the matter required determination by way of trial on the basis of evidence. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 to submit that since the suit property formed the shared household of the defendant No.1, she could not be evicted from the suit premises. Moreover, her rights to residence in the suit premises have been protected by the interim order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th January, 2021 in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 („DV Act‟ for short), which protection could not be defeated by seeking an eviction through an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The learned counsel also submitted that the defendant No.2 was herself a widowed and aged lady and she had no other place to go and therefore, she too could not be evicted. It is submitted that the allegations of the plaintiff that the defendants had an alternative place of residence in Pune, Maharashtra are vague and cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the sister of the defendant No.1 had briefly come to console the death of the husband of the defendant No.1 and had returned to her place of residence and the defendant No.1 had not committed any act of contempt or disobedience. Thus, the learned counsel for the defendants has prayed that the application be dismissed.

13. The learned senior counsel for the defendants, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) has argued that as the suit property was the shared household of the defendant No.1, this suit itself could not be instituted. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that quite to the contrary, the Supreme Court has found a civil suit for possession to be in consonance with the provisions of Section 17 of the DV Act. This Court is also of the view that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), the mere fact that premises take on the nature of shared household would not per se be a complete defence to a suit for possession filed by the owner of the property, being the in-laws of the defendant/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. It is also subject to eviction being initiated in accordance with law. Section 17 of the DV Act reads as under:

(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent's son/the appellant' husband has not been impleaded, the trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

(ii) The trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent's ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the sole premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.

18. The next question then is, do these circumstances exist in the present case? The learned senior counsel for the defendants stressed on the fact that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had vide order dated 14th January, 2021 granted a residence order pending the disposal of her application under Section 12 of the DV Act. Therefore, no order of eviction can be passed by the civil court. The Supreme Court had considered in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) the effect of the residence orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 19 of the DV Act in the civil suit. After extensive discussion, the Supreme Court concluded that the decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but would be relevant while dealing with the suit for possession or eviction that may be filed against the daughter-in-law. Therefore the contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendants cannot be accepted.