RAJ PAL Vs. NEHRU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not been able to make out any substantial question of law in the instant appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff herein had filed two suits i.e. one for recovery of possession (Suit No.294/2010) and the other permanent injunction (Suit No.295/2010) in respect of the suit property. Both these suits i.e. the suit for recovery of possession as well as the suit for permanent injunction were decreed against the appellant. However, the appellant chose to file an appeal only against the judgment and decree passed in the suit for possession. The first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree passed against the appellant vide order 25.09.2014. Now the present regular second appeal has been filed only against the judgment and decree so far as the possession is concerned.

(3.) THE case which was set up by the appellant/plaintiff was that one Sh.Phool Singh was the cousin brother of the respondent and he had permitted Phool Singh to occupy two rooms and some other portions of the property in question bearing No.23, Dhirpur Gaon near Nirankari Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 110009. As a licensee he was permitted to enjoy this license during his lifetime and since he had died, the widow (the present appellant) stepped into the shoes of her husband and continued with the possession of the suit property. The appellant was given a notice to vacate the premises after revocation of license in favour of her husband and since she did not respond, therefore, the suit for possession and permanent injunction was filed.