BINDU KUMARI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns order dated 18.03.2019, whereby, application under Order VI Rule 17 of the respondent/complainant has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application and has held that the petitioner is a licensee.

(3.) Perusal of the order shows that initially case set up by the Plaintiff/respondent was that the petitioner/defendant is a mere licensee and he was seeking a direction thereby directing the petitioner to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the property in Suit. By the amendment, respondent seeks possession of the Suit property in occupation of the petitioner.