DARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VIMAL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below in their judgments and decrees dated 10-2-1999 and 28-2-2003 respectively holding that the defendant-appellant is only a licensee and not a lessee. His license has been legally and validly revoked by the plaintiff-respondents. His ejectment had been ordered by both the Courts.

(2.) On 31-3-2003 when notice of motion was issued, counsel for the plaintiff-respondents had appeared. He had apprised the Court that possession of the premises had already been taken on 29-3-2003 through the Bailiff. Thereafter, by the affidavit filed by one of the plaintiff-respondent, namely, Subhash Bansal, a copy of the warrant of possession with the report dated 29-3-2003 have been placed on record which show that possession has been delivered to the plaintiff-respondents.

(3.) Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that once a person is in exclusive possession of the premises, then he cannot be considered as a licensee and such a person has to be considered as a lessee. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph 5 of the plaint and the statement of PW-2 Subhash Bansal. AccordIng to the learned counsel, a conjoint reading of the statement along with paragraph 5 of the plaint show that the defendant-appellant is in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute and the rate of rent has also been mentioned by the plaintiff-respondents to be Rs. l,000/- p.m. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Brahm Raj v. Smt. Vidya Wati, AIR 1991 Pun] and Hary 188.