DELHI DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondent on the averments that the appellant is owner of the suit property, i.e. a Nursery existing in the open space, which was given to grandmother of the respondent as a licensee at an annual rent of Rs. 5,000 and on expiry of the said license period, she was liable to hand over its possession to the appellant. But, after expiry of the said period she continued to be in possession of the said property. It was further averred in the plaint that a license deed was executed between the parties on 10.03.1997, according to which the defendant-respondent was to continue for another one year on payment of Rs. 5,000 as license fee per year for 1 = Kanals of plot to be used as a Nursery. A notice was issued by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent for termination of the license under registered cover dated 20.11.1997, which was duly received by him and since the license was terminated, the defendant-respondent was occupying the disputed property as an unauthorized occupant and was liable to hand over vacant possession of the same. Since the defendant-respondent refused to do so, necessity arose to file the instant suit. Upon notice, the defendant-respondent contested the claim raising various preliminary objections. In the written statement, it was specifically averred that the defendant was in possession of the suit property as a tenant thereof and was not bound by any agreement which was against the statute and the tenancy being of a property situated in urban area, the Civil Suit was not maintainable. It was further denied that the property along with the adjoining property was owned by the appellant. In fact, it was stated that the appellant has got no right, title or interest in the suit property.

(2.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and thereafter, the parties led evidence to prove their respective pleas.

(3.) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that the defendant was a licensee, who could be dispossessed from the disputed premises by the owner i.e. plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff was held entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction by deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The remaining issues were decided against the defendant and suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008.