New Delhi, Nov 11 A Delhi court has upheld an eviction order against a man and his wife, directing them to vacate a room in the house of his widowed mother, who had allowed them to stay there temporarily out of affection.
District Judge Sumit Dalal was hearing the couple's appeal against a trial court order directing them to hand over possession of a room to the 65-year-old woman and dismissed the plea, granting them 30 days to vacate.
In an order dated November 5, the court said, "The defendants have admitted that they were permitted to reside in one room 'temporarily' out of love and affection. They are, on their own showing, licensees, whose licence was revocable at the will of the plaintiff."
The court said that a son and daughter-in-law do not acquire any legal right to remain in their parents' house merely because they were permitted to live there for some time.
The court said that the eviction decree was confined to one room in the house and not the entire property.
As it happened, the woman had purchased the property in 2017 for Rs 11.75 lakh and allowed her son and daughter-in-law to occupy a room on the ground floor.
According to her, the arrangement was temporary, and the couple was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs 4,000 and take care of her.
She alleged that they stopped paying rent after a few months, refused to vacate, and kept assuring her that they would leave when they have found accommodation.
The couple challenged the eviction order, claiming that they had contributed towards the purchase and construction of the house and invested money in its renovation. They also alleged that their previous counsel made admissions in the written statement without their knowledge.
Rejecting their arguments, the court noted that both defendants had signed the written statement, acknowledging the mother's ownership and admitting that they had been permitted to stay temporarily.
The couple cannot subsequently withdraw these admissions and introduce an entirely different case claiming ownership rights, the court said.
The court also rejected their plea of adverse possession, observing that possession which began with permission could not be treated as adverse. It held that the couple's claims regarding contribution to construction, agricultural land and jurisdiction did not raise any triable issue preventing the decree for possession.
The court, however, clarified that the suit would continue before the trial court concerning the remaining reliefs, which would be decided independently on their merits.
