RISHIKA PURI Vs. NIRMAL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No.141/2017 whereby the suit preferred by the respondent no. 1 has been decreed for possession, on admission, by invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) The first respondent, aged about 73 years, is the mother-in-law of the appellant who is married to her son, i.e., respondent no.2. The first floor of the property, bearing no. A-241, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, ('suit premises' for short) admittedly belongs to the respondent no.1. In her suit for possession, mesne profits and damages against the appellant, she had pleaded that the respondent no.2 was her son and had gotten married to the appellant on 25.10.2004. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a girl child who is presently about 13 years old. It was further claimed that the respondent no.1 had permitted the appellant and her son- respondent no.2 to reside in the suit premises as a licensee, purely out of her love and affection for them; but for the last many years, both the appellant and her husband/respondent no.2 had become highly disrespectful towards her aged husband and her and, therefore, she was under no obligation to permit them to continue to reside in her house, when they had became a source of constant nuisance and trouble to her. It was further claimed in the plaint that even though the appellant used to abuse and torture the respondent no.1 and her husband, they were still continuing to take care of her minor daughter, in her absence.

(3.) On the other hand, the appellant, in her defence, while not denying that the property was in the name of the respondent no.1, had stated that her husband/respondent no.2, with whom she was having matrimonial differences, was in league with the respondent no.1 and had, merely as a ruse, taken a nearby accommodation on rent. She claimed that the respondent no.2 continued to stay in the suit premises but had taken a false stand that he was not residing there in support of his plea that the suit premises was not a 'shared household' of the appellant within the ambit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act' for short) thereby disentitling her to continue to reside in the suit premises. She further contended that the respondent no.2 had, at the instigation of his parents, filed a wholly misconceived divorce petition against her, which she is suitably defending.