RAM RAJ CHAURASIA Vs. RAM BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this First Appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 10.3.2011 which decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by granting possession.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondents'/plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, i.e. their father late Shri Kewal Mohan Bakshi, a blind person was allotted a license/tehbazari rights by the NDMC with respect to a semi wooden khoka of 7"X5", opposite Modern Bazaar, Near Police Assistance Booth, Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. THEre was an understanding between Shri Kewal Mohan Bakshi, the blind person and the present appellant/defendant with respect to the running of the kiosk. On account of the disputes and differences, a suit was filed by the present appellant against Shri Kewal Mohan Bakshi resulting in a compromise by which the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month with 10% increase on every 2 years. Shri Kewal Mohan Bakshi died on 22.3.2002 and the respondents'/plaintiffs' mother also died on 29.3.2002. Alleging that the appellant was a regular defaulter in payment of the license fee, the respondent/plaintiff terminated the license by notice dated 9.3.2010 and thereafter filed the subject suit for mandatory injunction. I may note that once a licensee is always a licensee. If the respondent was a licensee of the NDMC, then, the appellant cannot have any rights better than a sub-licensee. THE rights under a license are capable of being terminated, and nothing has been pointed out to me that a permanent license was given to the appellant in terms of a compromise decree between the parties in a Civil Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied upon Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors., 2006 (5) SCC 566 to argue that a compromise decree is binding. There is no dispute with this proposition of law, however, the compromise decree nowhere grants permanent licensee rights to the appellant, and therefore, the respondent was justified in terminating the license. I may note that the respondent has already executed the decree and taken possession of the suit premises. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM Nos.7753/11(stay), 9305/11(stay) and 9306/11(exemption) No orders are required to be passed in these applications as the appeal itself has been dismissed.