H K TANEJA Vs. BIPIN GANATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not on board. By consent, taken on board and argued by all the Advocates.

(2.) The Applicant has applied under Order 40 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Applicant must show that he was in possession of the property such that the Plaintiffs or the Defendant had no present right to remove him.

(3.) The Applicant has relied upon an Agreement dated 22.2.2001 to show his initial entry into the suit premises. This is a Leave and Licence Agreement executed by one Urmila Shah, who was the widow of one L.D. Shah, who owned the suit flat and who settled it upon a trust in favour of the Plaintiffs with a provision that his widow would live in the suit flat for her life-time. The settlor as well his widow have since expired. This Agreement is not in favour of the Applicant but his daughter one Mitali Sawant. It is a licence for 11 months which has expired by efflux of time. It is in respect of the permission to occupy one room in the suit flat with the common use of the bathroom, toilet and kitchen by the licensee. The licensee is to hand over possession of the premises on the expiration of licence. Though it goes without saying, it states that after the termination of the licence the occupation of the licensee would be deemed to be that of a trespas ser.