KRISHAN LAL Vs. KAMLESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for mandatory injunction regarding suit property filed by plaintiff Smt. Kamlesh Gupta (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 24/12/2004. However, the appeal filed by her was accepted by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dtd. 4/4/2006 and consequently, the suit was decreed. It is against this reversal that defendant of the case Krishan Lal (appellant herein) has approached this Court.

(2.) Dispute is regarding premises No. 6267/2-3 situated at Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, measuring 5' 3"x 26' (referred to as suit premises), on which plaintiff claims the defendant to be a licensee; whereas defendant claims that he is a tenant over it.

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar, Sandeep Kumar and Naveen Kumar @ Nischint Kumar sons of Parshotam Dass, were owners of property bearing No. 6267/2 measuring 26' x 19' along with the demised premises 5' 3"x 26' bearing house tax No. 6267/2-3 situated in Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Plaintiff purchased the entire property from Sanjeev Kumar etc. vide registered sale deed dtd. 9/9/1996 for valuable consideration. Out of the aforesaid property purchased by the plaintiff, her husband Gian Chand was in possession of the property bearing No. 6267/2 as tenant @ Rs.200.00per month. On the other hand, the demised premises forming part of the entire property, was in occupation of the defendant as a licensee. The defendant, who earlier used to sell fruits on the chabutra of the building of the Punjab National Bank and later on, on the chabutra of the building of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was allowed to use the demised premises by Parshotam Dass, the father of the previous owners as licensee. As plaintiff wanted the demised premises for her own use and occupation, therefore, she revoked the license of the defendant by issuing a notice dtd. 14/10/1996 through her counsel, which was duly served upon him. Defendant did not vacate the premises and as such, compelled the plaintiff to file the suit seeking mandatory injunction.