Dismissed

Sheetal Malik v. Nisha Tandon & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2016CM(M)/1143/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition challenging an order directing the wife to pay user charges for a property she enjoys. The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit. It clarified that inter-se disputes between spouses are to be adjudicated separately.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.10.2014 was dismissed. The user charges to be paid by the wife to the landlord were affirmed.

Sheetal Malik Vs Nisha Tandon & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1143/2015 and C.M. No.27758/2015 (stay) SHEETAL MALIK

¶4

..... Petitioner Through Petitioner with her counsel Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

NISHA TANDON & ANR

¶7

..... Respondent Through Mr. M.L. Mahajan and Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Advs. for R-1 Mr. S.D. Ansari and Mr. I. Ahmad, Advs. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 18.01.2016

¶12

Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 20.10.2014 vide which the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (seeking impleadment) had been allowed. She had been impleaded as a party and as a necessary corollary the Court had noted that since she is enjoying the property i.e. property bearing No. FGI/34-B, Ist Floor, DDA, LIG, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, the user charges of Rs.7,000/- per month to be paid by her. The petitioner/applicant is aggrieved by the said order.

¶13

Record shows that the suit property had been leased out by the landlord to Aman Malik (the husband of the petitioner/applicant). There were inter-se disputes between the parties and as per the written statement filed by the husband, he had admitted that he was the original

¶14

lessee of the property but since the last 1- ½ years i.e. w.e.f. September, 2012, he had left the premises because of estranged relationship with his wife and his wife was enjoying the property.

¶15

In the course of these proceedings, the present application came to be filed by the wife who had sought impleadment; admitted position being that she was living in the property but the user charges were to be paid by her husband.

¶16

The landlord cannot be made a pawn in these inter-se proceedings between the husband and the wife; the inter-se dispute between the husband and the wife is being looked after by the competent Court in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the plea made by learned counsel appearing for the wife that the husband should be made to pay the user charges will no doubt be addressed by the concerned Court.

¶17

The petitioner/applicant/wife is admittedly enjoying the said property. This is an admitted fact. The Trial Court directing the user charges to be paid by the wife to the landlord in this background suffers from no infirmity.

¶18

This petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

¶19

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶20

JANUARY 18, 2016 A

Sheetal Malik v. Nisha Tandon & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal Malik v. Nisha Tandon & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Kaur Vs Deepak Malhotra

Deepjot Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ashok Kriplani Vs Shiva Texyarn Ltd.

M/S Roop Sarees & Anr. Vs Atul Kapoor & Ors.

Roop Kamal Gupta & Anr. Vs Y K Goel & Anr.

Neel Kamal (Now Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Sadanand (Now Deceased) Thr Lr

Azad Singh Vs Reena & Anr.

Ram Chaudhary Vs Mukesh Kapoor

Mahender Kaur Vs Deepak Malhotra

Deepjot Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ashok Kriplani Vs Shiva Texyarn Ltd.

Narender Gupta & Ors. Vs Pushpa Gupta & Ors.

Rajesh Saini (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Daya Nand

Jagwati Vs Krishna & Ors.