SUBHASH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking decree of mandatory injunction to direct the appellant/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property (as detailed in para 1 of the judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2019 passed by the Trial Court) with a further prayer to pay for usage and occupation charges/mesne profits @ Rs.7,000.00 per month for each Kotha, till handing over its vacant possession. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2019 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dtd. 31/5/2022. The appellant/defendant is now before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(3.) The pleaded case of the plaintiffs may be noticed as thus. The plaintiffs along with Prem Chand and Radhe Shyam are owners of the suit property. In the year 2000, father of defendant, namely Risala, was employed as a chowkidar on a monthly salary of Rs.1,000.00 by the plaintiffs. From the year 2004 onwards said Risala was permitted to stay in the suit property i.e. Kothas as he found it difficult to commute daily from his village on account of his old age. Risala died in the year 2005 and thereafter, on the request of the defendant, the latter was employed as a chowkidar by the plaintiffs, on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500.00. The defendant along with his family after obtaining permission of the plaintiffs, continued to live in the suit property and also use the tubewell which was installed there. However, in the month of July, 2016, the plaintiffs learnt from their neighbours that the defendant and his family were indulging in illegal activities in the suit property. Resultantly, the defendant and his family were asked not only to vacate the suit property but even his services as chowkidar were terminated by the plaintiffs. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the status of the defendant and his family was one of a licensee and licence of the defendant stood verbally terminated after he was removed as chowkidar by the plaintiffs in the month of July 2016. Still further, it was averred that since the defendant refused to vacate the suit property after the termination of his licence and in spite of the oral requests by the plaintiffs, the former was also liable to pay usage and occupation charges to the latter, in addition to handing back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.