Wife Is Neither Appendage Nor Adjunct To Her Husband, She Retains Her Right To Pursue Her Dreams, Aspirations- Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court while dealing with a Petition challenging the dismissal of Eviction Petition by the Addl. Rent Controller-I (ARC-1), Tis Hazari, held that the ARC-1 delved into the economic well-being of the landlord and his daughters without looking into the primary aspect of whether an alternate suitable accommodation is available.
The Bench headed by Justice Najmi Waziri said that “The court is of the view that the status of financial well-being of a landlord or his family members-wife and children, who were dependent upon him, is not the test of bonafide requirement. All that was to be seen was whether there was a suitable alternate accommodation available with the landlord, for him to use or for providing the same to his daughters.”
The Bench also observed, “A wife is neither an appendage of nor an adjunct to her husband. Her identity does not merge with or get subsumed in her husband's identity. She retains her natural right to pursue her dreams, aspirations and the desire and need to be financially independent or otherwise do some meaningful social work. This aspiration cannot be questioned in proceedings for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.”
Advocate Rajat Aneja appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate M.A. Niyazi appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the ARC-1 dismissing the eviction petition. The first order of dismissal was set aside by the High Court and remanded to ARC for determination on the aspect of bonafide requirement and to consider the application for leave to defend.
The ARC in its order stated that the landlord is financially well-off. Further, the landlord had two daughters who were married so there was no bonafide use established by the landlord. Thus the eviction petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The order was challenged before the High Court.
The Court while examining the issues of bonafide intention held that “The court is of the view that disclosure of his entire financial affairs by a tenant is neither essential in an eviction petition nor is it mandatory for the landlord to disclose all properties owned by her/him. All that was to be seen was whether there was a suitable alternate accommodation available with the landlord, for him to use or for providing the same to his daughters.”
The High Court directed the Tenant to vacate the premises within 6 months under the provisions of Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: Nisar Ahmed v. Agya Pal Singh
Click here to read/download the judgment
