Does an aggrieved woman occupying of tenanted premises have a right to reside in the same, if the tenancy is in the name of her husband?

A plain reading of S. 17(1), reproduced above, makes it clear 
that the aggrieved woman has a right to residence even if the 
tenanted premises is not in her name, provided she shares a 
domestic relationship with the person in whose name the tenancy 
agreement is.  The Supreme Court has further clarified the issue 
and stated as follows:
We are also of the opinion that a deserted wife in occupation 
of the tenanted premises cannot be placed in a position worse 
than that of a sub-tenant contesting a claim for eviction 
on the ground of sub-letting. Having been deserted by the 
tenant-husband, she cannot be deprived of the roof over her 
head where the tenant has conveniently left her to face the 
peril of eviction attributable to default or neglect of himself. 
We are inclined to hold and we do so that a deserted wife 
continuing in occupation of the premises obtained on lease 
by her husband, and which was their matrimonial home, 
occupies a position akin to that of an heir of the tenant husband if the right to residence of such wife has not come 

to an end. The tenant having lost interest in protecting his 
tenancy rights as available to him under the law, the same 
right would devolve upon and inhere in the wife so long as 
she continues in occupation of the premises. Her rights and 
obligations shall not be higher or larger than those of the 
tenant himself. A suitable amendment in the legislation is 
called for to that effect. And, so long as that is not done, we, 
responding to the demands of social and  gender justice, need 
to mould the relief and do complete justice by exercising 
our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. We 

hasten to add that the purpose of our holding as above is 
to give the wife’s right to residence a meaningful efficacy as 
dictated by the needs of the times; we do not intend nor do 
we propose the landlord’s right to eviction against his tenant 
be subordinated to the wife’s right to residence enforceable 
against her husband. Let both the rights coexist so long as 
they can. (Para 33)
– B.P. achala anand vs. S. appi Reddy & another, (2005) 3 
SCC 313