The Delhi High Court has held that a woman cannot continue to occupy a property owned by her sister-in-law after her husband, who was residing there as a permissive occupant, vacates the premises.

While dealing with one such case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed,

“...it is her husband MK who had been permitted to occupy the Suit premises and after marriage she had merely joined him to reside in the Suit property, as his family member. Once, the right of the MK itself was terminated and he also vacated the premises, the status of the Appellant becomes no better than that of a trespasser and she is liable to vacate the property.”

The bench thus dismissed the second appeal filed by the Appellant-woman challenging concurrent findings directing her to hand over possession of the property to her sister-in-law.

The dispute concerned an inherited property whereby the sister permitted her brother to reside. After his marriage, his wife (Appellant) also began residing there.

According to the sister, disputes arose after the marriage and she eventually terminated the permission granted to her brother and his wife, calling upon them to vacate the premises.

While the brother subsequently left the property, the Appellant continued to remain in possession, claiming a right of residence in the matrimonial home.

The trial court decreed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the sister-in-law and directed the Appellant to vacate the property. The first appellate court affirmed the decree.

Before the High Court, the Appellant argued that the property constituted her shared household and that the courts below had erred in rejecting her claim to residence rights.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that she had entered the property only after her marriage and had come to reside there through her husband, who himself was merely a permissive occupant.

“It has been rightly held by both the Courts that the Appellant had come to reside with her husband in the Suit property, as a permissive user and once, the permission was withdrawn, she had no right, title and interest to continue to reside in the property,” it said.

The Court added that the discord inter-se the husband and the wife cannot become a penalty for a sister-in-law, who in good faith, had permitted them to occupy her Suit property.

As such, it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Mr. Mohammad Sajid and Mr. Abdullah Bin Masood, Advocates with Appellant in person; Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Pulak Gupta Joshi and Ms. Payal Rajput, Advs. for Respondents

Case Title: S v. M & Anr.

Case no.: RSA 22/2022

Click here to read order