As long tenancy continues to be effective, tenanted premises remains a shared household under Domestic Violence Act #indianlaws

The tenanted premises where a woman lives with her husband would definitely come within the category of shared household but as long as the tenancy survives. A deserted wife who has been or is entitled to be in occupation of the matrimonial home is entitled to contest the suit for eviction filed against her husband in his capacity as tenant she  would be entitled to raise all such pleas and claim trial thereon, as would have been available to the tenant himself and no more. So long as by availing the benefit of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and rent control legislation, the tenant would have been entitled to stay in the tenancy premises, the wife too can continue to stay exercising her right to residence as a part of right to maintenance subject to compliance with all such obligations including the payment of rent to which the tenant is subject. This right comes to an end with the wife losing her status as wife consequent upon decree of divorce and the right to occupy the house as part of right to maintenance coming to an end. 

There were two vital issues to be decided by the Court. One – whether tenanted premises where woman lives with her husband would come within the category of shared household and is there any duration till when such effect continues; and Second, whether landlord, as third party to matrimony dispute between husband and wife can be directed to not to deprive wife of tenanted premises as it would lead to husband freeing up from his obligations towards wife.

In respect of the first issue it was held that the tenanted premises where a woman lives with her husband would definitely come within the category of shared household but as long as the tenancy survives.

It was observed that the definition of “shared household” emphasizes the factum of a domestic relationship and no investigation into the ownership of the said household is necessary, as per the definition.

The Domestic Violence Act is an extension of the deeper and profounder principle of Women’s Rights as a part of Human Rights. The matrimonial home or the shared household of a person does not require it to be owned or co-owned by the person who has been violated. It could be any household “whether owned or tenanted, either jointly or by either of them” as specifically set out in section 2(s) above. It is the household in which the victim and the violator may be having rights, singly or jointly. Consequently, they may or may not have title to the property and hence the victim can apply for a residence order to the Court in respect of a shared household, which includes their matrimonial home, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest therein. The very consideration of ownership rights would put materialism before matrimony.

A deserted wife who has been or is entitled to be in occupation of the matrimonial home is entitled to contest the suit for eviction filed against her husband in his capacity as tenant subject to satisfying two conditions: first, that the tenant has given up the contest or is not interested in contesting the suit and such giving up by the tenant-husband shall prejudice the deserted wife who is residing in the premises; and secondly, the scope and ambit of the contest or defence by the wife would not be on a footing higher or larger than that of the tenant himself. In other words, such a wife would be entitled to raise all such pleas and claim trial thereon, as would have been available to the tenant himself and no more. So long as by availing the benefit of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and rent control legislation, the tenant would have been entitled to stay in the tenancy premises, the wife too can continue to stay exercising her right to residence as a part of right to maintenance subject to compliance with all such obligations including the payment of rent to which the tenant is subject. This right comes to an end with the wife losing her status as wife consequent upon decree of divorce and the right to occupy the house as part of right to maintenance coming to an end.

In regard to second issue it was held as not lawful to force an outsider who is not privy to any dispute between the warring couple or has any trick or alliance with them to extend tenancy in their or in wife’s favour without his choice or willingness despite the beneficent provisions of the Domestic Violence Act when the term of lease has expired and the tenancy also stands terminated. A tenanted premises may come within the expression of shared household but such premises would come out of the scope of such definition, no sooner the tenancy expires.

No person could be forced to enter into a contract with another without his consent or choice. It would have depended upon the desire and willingness of the landlord to continue with the tenancy when the tenancy has expired.

[Anukriti Dubey vs. Partha Kansabanik and Anr.]

Delhi HC, 23.03.2016

RSA No. 42/2016