The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has held that a son and daughter-in-law have no legal right to continue residing in the property of a father once permission to stay has been revoked by the owner. Dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed by a couple against court orders directing them to vacate the property, the court reaffirmed that while a daughter-in-law has a right to reside in a shared household, such a right is not absolute and she can be evicted following due process of law.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to House No. 201, Ground Floor, MIG Flats (Metro Apartments), Jahangir Puri, Delhi, owned by Sh. Chand Babu. Following the marriage of his son, Sh. Brij Raj, to Smt. Renu Raj on January 28, 2012, Chand Babu permitted the couple to reside in one room of the premises out of love and affection.
However, from December 2014 onwards, the couple’s conduct toward the father became hostile and disrespectful, and they failed to care for him in his old age. In June 2015, the couple allegedly threatened to dispossess him from the property. Consequently, Chand Babu revoked their permission to reside in the house through a Legal Notice dated July 13, 2015. When they failed to vacate, he filed a civil suit seeking a mandatory injunction for possession along with user and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month from August 1, 2015.
Arguments of the Parties
In their written statements before the trial court, the son and daughter-in-law contended that Chand Babu was not the absolute owner of the property. They claimed that Smt. Renu Raj had given Rs. 2 lakhs to the father on the assurance that a sale deed would be executed in her favor. Furthermore, they asserted that Sh. Brij Raj had contributed a significant sum toward the maintenance and expenses of the house, making him a co-sharer. They also cited a complaint made to the CAW Cell, which had been settled, and denied allegations of hostility or cruelty.
In his replication, Chand Babu denied these assertions and reaffirmed his claim. To establish ownership, he produced the allotment letter dated September 9, 1996, and deposit receipts amounting to Rs. 40,218.43. The defendants, despite being given multiple opportunities, failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claims, leading the trial court to close their evidence on March 27, 2023.
In their second appeal before the High Court, the appellants relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, arguing that a domestic relationship existed between the parties and that the property constituted a “shared household” where the daughter-in-law possessed an independent right of residence regardless of property ownership.
Lower Courts’ Findings
The Civil Judge decreed the suit on May 27, 2023, granting a mandatory injunction directing the son and daughter-in-law to deliver peaceful vacant possession of the premises within one month. The trial court concluded that Chand Babu was the sole owner and noted that there was no indefeasible right of daughter-in-law to live in the suit premises. However, considering the familial relationship and evidence, the court denied the claim for user and occupation charges/damages.
The District Judge dismissed the first appeal on August 1, 2024, observing that no evidence had been led by the defendants to prove co-ownership, monetary contribution of Rs. 2 lakhs, or the alleged compromise.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Examining the case under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the father was the absolute owner of the premises and had merely granted permissive user rights to his son and daughter-in-law.
Addressing the legal arguments regarding the daughter-in-law’s right to stay in a shared household, the High Court acknowledged the principle laid down in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. However, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Court highlighted that the right of daughter-in-law is not indefeasible and the only caveat is that she can be dispossessed, only in accordance with law.
The High Court observed that there was no proof of any monetary contribution by the son or daughter-in-law. The court ruled that the Appellants can claim no right to continue in the property of the father, once he had withdrawn his permission from them to continue to reside in the premises.
Finding no substantial question of law in the appeal, the High Court dismissed the second appeal along with all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sh. Brij Raj and Smt. Renu Raj v. Sh. Chand Babu
Case No.: RSA 185/2024
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: August 04, 2026
