The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second regular appeal, affirming that a civil suit for possession is not barred by a claim of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that no substantial question of law arose.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ali Fatima (wife of the plaintiff's elder son), occupied the first-floor portion of a house (G-234, Gali No. 13/7, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi) that the plaintiff, a retired school teacher, claimed to have purchased in his own name on 15.01.2011. The plaintiff sought vacant possession of the suit property and a permanent injunction against the appellant.
Key Facts
- Property No. D-265, Khasra Nos. 640/4 and 304, 50 sq. yd., purchased by the plaintiff on 15.01.2011 via General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, will, receipt, etc.
- The plaintiff’s elder son, Mohd. Raza (Defendant No. 1), married Poonam Rani @ Sana (Defendant No. 3) and later Ali Fatima (Defendant No. 2) on 04.10.2009 under Muslim personal law.
- The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2018 demanding that the appellant vacate the suit premises.
- The appellant allegedly rented the house to tenants for about Rs.6,000 per month, later claiming the rent was Rs.2,000 per month.
- The appellant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC and a complaint in the CAW Cell, alleging harassment.
- The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 116/2018 for possession and permanent injunction; issues were framed on 07.12.2018.
- The District Judge delivered a decree of possession on 27.08.2025, directing the appellant to hand over possession.
- The appellant appealed (RCA DJ No. 52/2025) and the appellate court upheld the decree on 06.01.2026, noting the appellant’s right of residence under the D.V. Act was not established.
- The present second regular appeal under Section 100 CPC was filed thereafter.
Procedural History
- 15.01.2011: Plaintiff purchased the suit property.
- 04.10.2009: Marriage of appellant to Defendant No. 1.
- 22.02.2018: Legal notice served on appellant.
- 2018: Civil Suit No. 116/2018 filed.
- 07.12.2018: Issues framed (possession, injunction, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, etc.).
- 27.08.2025: District Judge decreed possession in favour of plaintiff.
- 06.01.2026: Appellate court upheld decree; appellant’s D.V. Act claim rejected.
- 11.08.2026: Delhi High Court delivered the judgment dismissing the appeal.
The Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Claims a statutory right of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, contending the suit property is a shared household and that eviction must follow the procedure prescribed by the Act.
- Respondent (Plaintiff): Asserts exclusive ownership of the suit property, reliance on documentary evidence (GPA, agreement to sell), and that the appellant’s right of residence is not established; argues the civil suit is maintainable.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the decree of possession and an order that she could not be evicted except pursuant to the procedure under Section 17 of the D.V. Act.
The Legal Issue
Whether a claim of right of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can bar the maintenance of a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction, and whether the appeal raises any substantial question of law.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant relied on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414, asserting that the right under Section 17 is an independent statutory right that cannot be defeated by ownership claims.
- Cited Section 17(2) of the D.V. Act, which mandates that eviction of an aggrieved person from a shared household must follow the procedure established by law.
- Submitted that the suit property constitutes a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act, and that she is entitled to alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f).
For the Respondent
- Relied on S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 to define “shared household” narrowly, emphasizing that ownership remains with the plaintiff.
- Emphasised that the plaintiff proved ownership and possession through documents, and that the appellant failed to produce any registered sale deed as required by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- Argued that the civil suit is a permissible remedy under the statutory scheme of the D.V. Act, which does not bar civil proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the nature of the right conferred by Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. It noted that the provision is protective and procedural, requiring that any eviction be carried out “in accordance with the procedure established by law” (Section 17(2)). The Court observed that the Act does not create an absolute bar to civil suits for possession; rather, it mandates that the civil process respect the procedural safeguards.
"Section 17(2) itself contemplates eviction or exclusion of aggrieved person from a shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law. The proceeding in a competent court for eviction or exclusion is contemplated by the statutory scheme of the 2005 Act."
The Court then turned to precedent. It affirmed the ratio in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja that the right under Section 17 is independent but not exclusive of the owner’s right to seek possession, especially where the aggrieved person has alternate accommodation. The appellant’s claim of drawing rent from an alternative house (Rs.2,000 per month) satisfied the requirement of alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f).
The Court also considered the evidentiary record. The plaintiff had produced the General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, and other documents establishing his title, whereas the appellant failed to produce a registered sale deed or any evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s ownership claim. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, an adverse inference was drawn against the appellant for non-production of documents.
Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that the civil suit was not barred by the D.V. Act because the Act expressly allows parallel civil proceedings, provided the procedural safeguards are observed. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.
Finally, the Court examined whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law. It concluded that the issues were purely factual, having been decided by the lower courts on the basis of evidence, and that the appellant’s contentions did not introduce a novel legal question.
The Verdict
The appeal is dismissed. The decree of possession dated 27.08.2025, directing the appellant to vacate the suit property, remains in force. No monetary relief, costs, or further directions are granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Civil Suits Can Proceed Despite D.V. Act Claims
- Practitioners must recognise that a claim under Section 17 does not automatically stay a civil possession suit.
- The court will examine whether the aggrieved person has alternate accommodation; if so, the claim does not bar eviction.
Evidence of Ownership Is Crucial
- Unregistered agreements such as GPA cannot substitute for a registered sale deed when the value exceeds Rs.100.
- Failure to produce title documents invites adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Procedural Safeguards Must Be Observed
- Even when a civil suit is maintainable, the court will ensure that the procedural requirements of the D.V. Act (notice, opportunity to be heard) are complied with.
- Counsel should advise clients to seek alternate accommodation or rent-in-lieu relief under Section 19 to strengthen their position.
