SURJIT KAUR Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the view taken by the learned District Judge, Amritsar holding that the defendant-respondent could not have been held to be licensee merely because her husband Paramjit Singh was a licensee under the plaintiff-appellant as the license like the tenancy rights is not inheritable. It has further been held that in such a situation, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to vacate one room in the suit property was not maintainable. The aforementioned view is based on the judgment of Madras High Court in Alagiri Chetty v. Muthuswami Chetty, AIR 1940 Madras 102 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. Bhola Nath, 1987 Shimla LJ 489. The view taken by the learned trial Court holding the defendant-respondent as a licensee has been set aside. The trial Court had also held in its judgment and decree dated 7-10-1997 that the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 16-10-1963.

(2.) The question of law which requires determination in the instant appeal is as under :-

(3.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction for direction to the defendant-respondent to vacate one room as per the site plan on the basis that she is owner of the suit property. Paramjit Singh husband of the defendant-respondent was her brother. He was allowed by the plaintiff-appellant to live in one room as a licensee because he was a student at that time. The defendant-respondent is stated to be the widow of her brother Paramjit Singh who had died and she is asserted to have stepped into the shoes of her husband by becoming a licensee. The plaintiff-appellant is alleged to have served a notice dated 11-7-1991 and terminated her license but despite notice she has failed to vacate one room.