Wife’s Identity Does Not Merge With Husband’s Identity, She Has Natural Right To Pursue Her Dreams To Be Financially Independent: Delhi High Court

A wife is neither an appendage nor an adjunct to her husband and her identity does not merge or get subsumed in her husband’s identity, the Delhi High Court observed in a recent ruling, while directing a tenant to vacate a shop proposed to be used by daughters of a landlord, a Mutawalli of a Wakf-ul-aulad, for starting their business in the national capital.

Justice Najmi Waziri observed that a wife, in law, retains her individual entity, including the natural right to pursue her dreams, aspirations, desire and need to be financially independent or otherwise do some meaningful social work.

The landlord had challenged the dismissal of his petition seeking eviction of the tenant by an Additional Rent Controller in June 2018.

The eviction was sought on the ground that the shop was required for bonafide use by the landlord and his married daughters, who were dependent on their father for a space for their business.

It was also contended that the daughters had no suitable alternate accommodation, were unemployed but had commercial aspirations as they were well educated. The eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that bonafide requirement was not established.

Allowing the plea, Justice Waziri observed that the impugned judgment “misdirected itself” in an inquiry about the economic well being of the landlord, his wife and business of the daughters’ husbands, or in concluding that there was no need for the daughters to start their business or to ask their father to provide them an accommodation for business simply because they were married and alternate accommodation was available with their husbands.

“Idle luxuriation may not be the life-goal of many a woman or to be simply known as a rich man's wife. There is a certain self-worth which a person acquires by running her or his own business/commercial enterprise, vocation and professional activity. This aspiration cannot be questioned in proceedings for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises,” the court observed.

Justice Waziri said that for a daughter, irrespective of her matrimonial status, her paternal or maternal home is always a “psychological, physical and emotional sanctuary” and a place to which she can relate and return to freely, irrespective of how far she is geographically located from her parents.

“The law provides for eviction of a tenant on the need of dependants. Married daughters are included among dependents of their parents, for commercial/residential space. The test in law is about the dependency of the children upon the landlord/ landlady when the property of the parent is in question,” the court said.

It further added that a Mutawalli has the right to induct or evict a tenant or licencee, keeping it in mind the needs and objectives of the wakfs.

“In the present case, the wakf is for the aulad i.e. the children /descendants of the wakif. The appellant is the Mutawalli-its manager and has every right to file the eviction petition for his benefit and for the benefit of the children, so that the latter could have financial independence and realize their aspirations as businesswomen. The inquiry into the education and qualification of the daughters for starting a business was unnecessary,” the court observed.

The court therefore held the petition as maintainable, observing that the married daughters were dependent upon their father for a space to start their business in Delhi.

“He is also going through difficult medical ailments and needs the tenanted premises (shop) located on the ground floor. No suitable alternate accommodation has been shown by the tenant or otherwise brought on record. The landlord has established a case for eviction of the tenant from the ground floor. Nothing more is required to be examined,” the court said.

While directing the tenant to vacate and hand over the peaceful physical possession of the shop to the landlord, Justice Waziri however, said that as per provisions under section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the order shall not be executable for a period of six months.

Title: NISAR AHMED v. AGYA PAL SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Click Here To Read Order