RAJINDER PARSHAD VERMA Vs. PUSHPA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Respondent filed a suit for possession. The respondent and the appellant are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law. The case of the respondent was that she was the owner of the property consisted of plot No.46 (Part), ad measuring 100 sq. yds approximately situated in Partap Nagar, Near Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi having purchased from its previous owner Sh.Indraj Singh Verma in January, 1981.

(2.) The case of the respondent was that as the appellant was in personal difficulty in finding accommodation and was permitted to stay in the suit property temporarily as a licensee and till date he has not paid even a single penny for use and occupation of the suit property and when she had to marry her son she demanded the possession of the suit property which was denied by the appellant. A notice, therefore, was issued on 5.3.1999 for termination of license and thereafter, the suit for possession was filed. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties:-

(3.) Mr.Vashisht, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that he filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with the appeal for leading additional evidence by way of oral examination of the remaining witnesses in terms of list of witnesses which was filed by the appellant before the trial court and he be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence. Another contention which has been raised before us by the counsel for the appellant was that assuming that it was a license, still the appellant, in view of the fact that respondent has allowed the appellant to construct on the property the same he would be covered under Section 60 of the Easements Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has cited AIR 2000 S.C. 614.