SURINDER NARANG Vs. MADHU RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 23.12.2014 passed by the first appellate court in RCA No.25/2012.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the question of law urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it would be pertinent here to give a brief background of the case. The respondent herein is the mother of the appellant No.1 and mother in law of the appellant No.2.

(3.) THE respondent filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit/damages against the appellants herein in the month of October, 1988. The case which was set up by her was that she was the owner of property bearing No.A -72, Yojna Vihar, Delhi 110092 measuring 271.05 square yards. The property was purchased from one Sh.M.K.Premi s/o Sh.V.S.Premi for a valuable sale consideration on 23.01.1995. Appellant No.1/Defendant No.1 being the son was living with the respondent/plaintiff. After he got married in the year 1996, he was permitted to occupy one room, attached toilet, bath room of the aforesaid property which was particularly shown in the plan attached to the suit. It was alleged that the expiry of four months from the date of marriage, the appellant No.2 started picking up quarrels with the respondent/wife for no rhyme or reason and the appellant No.1 in connivance with appellant No.2 started threatening the respondent and her husband for being implicated in a false and frivolous criminal matter in case they did not accede to their illegal demand of giving them money for purchase of a new flat. The appellant No.2 was stated to be working in Delhi Police and was threatening both the respondent and her husband to be sent behind the bars by using her office of Delhi Police. For this purpose, the appellant No.2 in connivance with appellant No.1 lodged some frivolous complaints against the respondent and her husband. Because of this bad behaviour, the respondent had got a notice inserted in a local newspaper Veer Arjun on 30.09.1997 severing all her relations with the appellants. Thereafter the present proceedings for retrieval of possession by terminating his licence dated 24.08.1998. It was also alleged that from 05.09.1998, the respondent was entitled to use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per month which the room in question would have fetched from letting out the same.