B.P. ACHALA ANAND versus S. APPI REDDY AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 3 · Decided: 11-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B.P. ACHALA ANAND 
v. 
S. APPi REDDY AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 11, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUF. Ai-JD 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Hindu law: 
A 
B, 
Deserted or divorced wife-right of-To retain occupation of matrimonial C 
home-Tenanted premises-Taken by husband-premises left by husband 
leaving behind deserted wife-Eviction suit-Right of deserted wife to contest 
the suit-Decree of divorce during pendency of the suit-Held: Deserted wife 
has right to remain in occupation of the matrimonial home and can continue 
to stay exercising her right to residence as a part of right to maintenance- D 
Such right comes to an end upon decree of divorce as wife loses the status of 
wife-However, right of divorced wife would depend on the terms and 
conditions of the decree of divorce-Deserted wife can contest the suit for 
eviction before the decree is passed if the tenant (husband) gives up the 
contest or not interested in contesting-Scope and ambit of the contest or 
defence by the wife would not be on a higher or larger footing than that of E 
the tenant-In the present case wife rightly allowed to contest the suit-But 
after dissolution of marriage and in absence of terms and conditions of decree 
of divorce as to whether she was entitled to continue in the premises by virtue 
of obligation of husband to provide residence for her as a part of maintenance 
cannot defend the suit thereajter-Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Section F 
21(/)(a) and (h)-Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1954-Section 18-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 25 and 27. 
Respondent No. 2 had taken the premises in dispute on rent and used 
to live therein alongwith his appellant-wife. Oue to estranged relationship 
he deserted his wife leaving her behind in the tenanted premises. Landlord G 
initiated eviction proceedings against respondent No. 2 u/s.2l(l)(a) and 
(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 alleging that he was in arrears 
of rent and that they needed the rented premises bonajide for their own 
occupation. Since Respondent No. 2 did not contest the suit seriously, 
appellant-wife filed an application seeking her impleadment in the 
3 
H 
4 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
.. 
A proceedings which was rejected by trial Court. In Revision Petition, Hig:h 
Court permitted her to be brought on record subject to her depositing a 
sum towards payment of arrears of rent. Trial Court passed order for 
partial eviction holding that case for eviction u/s. 21(1)(a) was not made 
out. In Revision Petition by landlord, High Court set aside the order of 
B 
partial eviction, rejecting the ground of eviction u/s. 21(1)(h) and ordert~d 
eviction u/s. 21(1)(a) holding that there was no relationship of landlo1rd 
and tenant between the landlord and the appellant; that provisions of 
Section 21(2) having not been complied with, tenant was liable to be evicted 
u/s.21(1)(a). 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Rent Control Law makes provision for protection of 
the tenant not only for his own benefit but also for the benefit of all those 
residing or entitled to reside with him or for whose residence he must 
provide for. A decree or order for eviction would deprive not only lthe 
D tenant of such protection but members of his family (including the spouse) 
will also suffer eviction. So long as the tenant defends himself, the interest 
of his family members merges with that of the tenant and they too are 
protected. The tenant cannot, by collusion or by deliberate prejudicial :1ct, 
give up the protection of law to the detriment of his family members. So 
E 
long as a decree for eviction has not been passed the members of the fa1111ily 
are entitled to come to the Court and seek leave to defend and thereby 
contest the proceedings and such leave may be granted by the Court if 
the Court is satisfied that the tenant was not defending - .by collusion, 
connivance or neglect - or was acting to the detriment of such persiims. 
Such a situation would be rare and the Court shall always be on its guard 
F in entertaining any such prayer. Such a prayer or any dispute sought to 
be raised post-decree by a member of family of the tenant may not be 
entertained by the Court. (12-C-G) 
2. A Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband. Sl~e is 
entitled to remain under his roof and protection. SJie is also entitled to 
G separate residence if by reason of the husband's conduct or by his refusal 
to maintain her in his own place of res

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.