KUMARI SUSHILA YADAV Vs. ATUL CHAUDHARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent does not dispute that the appellant is the owner of a plot of land bearing Municipal No. E -39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065. Whereas appellant claims that the respondent No. 1, who is appellant's nephew, was given permissive possession by her to reside in a portion of the building constructed on the plot shown in red colour in the plan annexed to the plaint and having revoked the permission she is entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits; the claim of respondent No. 1 is that under an oral permission granted by the appellant, from his own funds, he constructed the portion of the building which is in his occupation; possession whereof is sought and that the oral permission was with the understanding that the respondent No. 1 would be the ultimate owner thereof.

(2.) With these pleadings of the parties, appellant filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree on admission and the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that having admitted appellant's ownership and that the oral permission granted to occupy the suit property was withdrawn by the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and his wife and son (impleaded as defendants No. 2 and 3 in suit) were liable to be ejected forthwith. A decree on admission was prayed for.

(3.) With reference to Sec. 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as : (1987) 2 SCC 555 Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. the learned Single Judge has held that no decree on admission could be passed for the reason the triable issue would be whether pursuant to a license granted by the appellant the respondent No. 1 constructed the suit property from his own funds and thus the license was irrevocable.