Tenant Cannot Escape Liability by Claiming Non-Residence; Family Occupation Amounts to Juridical Possession: Delhi High Court

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

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, reiterated that when a property is rented for residential purposes, the presence of family members in the premises legally constitutes possession of the tenant himself.

The Court 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 ruling came in a case where the tenant had challenged an eviction decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to decide matters based on admissions made by parties. The landlord had approached the court seeking possession of the property, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, and an injunction against the tenant.

In the course of proceedings, the tenant admitted the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship as well as the agreed rent. However, he sought to avoid liability by contending that he had not been in possession of the premises since June 2022. According to him, his estranged wife had locked the property and retained exclusive control over it, thereby disentitling him from any legal responsibility.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that the wife’s occupation of the premises did not create any independent legal right against the landlord. The Court noted that the wife had entered the premises as a family member of the tenant and not as a tenant in her own right. It categorically observed, “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.”

The Court also examined the argument relating to a wife’s right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While acknowledging that the law provides certain protections to an estranged wife, including a right to reside in the shared household, the Court clarified that such a right is not absolute and cannot override the legal rights of the landlord.

On facts, the Court found that the wife had merely placed her locks on the premises and had subsequently shifted to her parental home. In this context, the Court took a critical view of the situation, observing that such conduct appeared to be an attempt to frustrate the landlord’s legitimate rights. It stated, “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.”

Importantly, the Court emphasised that juridical possession does not depend on the tenant’s physical presence in the property. As long as the premises are occupied by individuals deriving their right from the tenant, such possession continues in the eyes of law to be that of the tenant.

Given these findings, the High Court concluded that the defence raised by the tenant lacked merit and did not create any triable issue. Accordingly, it upheld the eviction decree passed by the trial court on the basis of admissions.

“The only defence set up by the Appellant was that he had a mutual oral settlement with the Landlord and vacated the suit Property in June 2022 and also paid the rent till June 2023. However, it was his estranged wife whohad locked the suit premises and it was she who was in exclusive possession, who had the sole key of the tenanted premise, for which he cannot be held responsible……..This defence, however, is not tenable. The tenancy was admittedly created between the Respondent and the Appellant. Clause 14 and 18 of the said Lease Deed stated that either of the parties, Lessor or the Lessee shall have the option to terminate the lease by giving one month notice and if the Lessee is the defaulter, he shall be bound to handover the vacant and peaceful possession. 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”, the Court observed.

The Court also affirmed the directions for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits, reinforcing the principle that tenants cannot avoid contractual and statutory obligations through technical or indirect defences.

“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……. The wife is also not physically residing in the Suit Premises. If at all, she is at liberty to seek her rights against the husband. It is interesting to note while the Appellant had throughout stated that he was not in possession and has already vacated the premises and that it is the wife who is in possession, he pertinently, filed this Appeal to challenge the Order, which is based on the admissions made by him in his Written Statement as well as his statement under Order X Rule 2 CPC. It is quite evident that this Appeal is nothing but a proxy litigation and has no merits”, the Court observed.

This ruling reiterates a crucial aspect of tenancy law: legal possession is broader than mere physical occupation, and responsibilities arising from a tenancy cannot be sidestepped by shifting possession within the family.

Case Title: Rajat Verma v. HP Suman

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026