Tenant Liable For Possession Through Family Members, Can't Evade Liability By Claiming Non-Residence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a tenant cannot evade legal liability by claiming that he is not personally residing in the rented premises, holding that occupation by family members continues to constitute juridical possession of the tenant.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed,

“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.”

The bench thus dismissed an appeal filed by a tenant challenging an eviction decree passed on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The dispute arose from a suit filed by the landlord seeking possession of the property, recovery of rent arrears, mesne profits, and injunction. The tenant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and the agreed rent but contended that he was not in possession of the premises since June 2022, asserting that his estranged wife had locked the property and retained exclusive control.

Rejecting this defence, the High Court held, “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.”

On the aspect of the right of a wife to residence, which has been recognized under Section 17 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court found that the wife had merely put her locks and shifted to the premises of her father.

In these circumstances, the Court said, “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.”

As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the eviction decree, along with directions for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Appearance: Ms. Neha Jain, Ms. Avni Soni, Mr. Sanchit Saini, Ms. Aditi Choudhary and Ms. Sakshi Jain, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Respondent

Case title: Rajat Verma v. HP Suman

Case no.: RFA 401/2024

Click here to read order