While calling an appeal filed by a tenant a proxy litigation, the Delhi High Court has held that the possession of the premises by any member of his family continues to remain juridical possession of the tenant himself, and he cannot evade liability merely by asserting that he personally is not residing in the premises.

The Appeal before the High Court was filed by the Appellant, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XLI CPC for setting aside the Judgment whereby the Suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed for recovery of possession.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “Even otherwise, when a tenant takes premises on rent for residence along with his family members, the possession of the premises by any member of his family continues to remain juridical possession of the tenant himself. The Appellant/ Lessee cannot evade liability merely by asserting that he personally is not residing in the premises.”

Advocate Neha Jain represented the Appellant while Advocate Sudhir Kumar Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff/respondent stated that he was the absolute owner of a residential flat (suit property). The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was let out to the Defendant/Appellant for residential purposes, vide a registered Lease Deed for a period of 24 months. The plaintiff alleged that the Defendant stopped paying rent and the suit premises were locked for 6-7 months, as he started residing at the address given in the Memo of parties, without communicating any reason. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant neither paid rent nor permitted inspection of the premises nor handed over possession.

The plaintiff alleged that despite repeated requests, the Defendant failed to vacate the premises and also threatened the plaintiff that he would create a third-party interest in the property. The plaintiff sought possession of the suit property and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs 1,32,000. It was the defendant’s case that the property had been lying closed for several months, with the defendant residing elsewhere, and the Defendant had not accessed the tenanted premises as his wife had the exclusive possession and the key to the said premises.

The District & Sessions Judge concluded that the premises continued to remain in possession of the Defendant either by himself or through his wife. Accordingly, the application for judgment on admission was allowed, and the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent was decreed, directing the Defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property within one month. Aggrieved, the Appellant/ Defendant filed the Appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the tenancy was admittedly created between the Respondent and the Appellant. Clauses 14 and 18 of the said Lease Deed stated that either of the parties, Lessor or the Lessee, shall have the option to terminate the lease by giving one month's notice, and if the Lessee is the defaulter, he shall be bound to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession. “The wife admittedly came to live in the premises as a family member of the Appellant. She therefore, cannot be held as having any independent locus to claim tenancy, there being no privity of contract with the Respondent”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant himself had given a statement that he was not residing in the suit property, but his wife was living. It was also ascertained that the wife had merely put her locks and had shifted to the premises of her father. Noting that the wife was neither living in the property nor was she in need of the residential protection in respect of the tenanted premises, the Bench stated, “In fact, it is gross abuse of the process of law where she has merely put the lock to the premises, which is blatantly in order to defeat the rights of the landlord.”

“While the Law recognizes the protection to an estranged wife of residence, but it is not an absolute right and her claim is essentially limited to the husband”, it added. Considering that the wife was also not physically residing in the suit premises, the Bench stated, “If at all, she is at liberty to seek her rights against the husband.”

Noting that the appellant had pertinently filed the Appeal to challenge the Order, which was based on the admissions made by him in his Written Statement as well as his statement under Order X Rule 2 CPC, the Bench found the appeal to be a proxy litigation. The Bench, thus, dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Rajat Verma v. H.P Suman (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2561)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Neha Jain, Avni Soni, Sanchit Saini, Aditi Choudhary, Sakshi Jain

Respondent: Advocate Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Neena Bansal Krishna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.