SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal filed by the defendant arises from a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff along with mesne profile for unauthorized occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till its delivery.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is a pensioner having retired from Haryana State Electricity Board and is owner of the suit property bearing House No. 1880-A situated at Ram Nagar, Near Punjab National Bank, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and is residing on the ground floor. It was pleaded that the said plot was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 26.9.1978 and he had constructed a double storey building over the same after completing the formalities. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had two sons and one daughter and that one son, namely, Pawan was residing with the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the first floor as a licensee keeping in view the relation of father and son. It was further pleaded that when the relations between the parties did not improve and deteriorated due to misbehaviour of the defendant and his wife, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit property and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to him but the defendant refused to vacate the same. Thereafter the plaintiff terminated the license of the defendant by serving a notice dated 10.11.2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant No. 1 filed written statement by raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, defendant and Pawan Kumar form a Joint Hindu Family and the house in question is the property of Joint Hindu Family. It was further pleaded that defendant also contributed in the construction of the house and as per family settlement, the first floor of the house was given to the defendant in his own right as owner and as such the defendant is not a licensee and no question of payment of any mesne profits arise. It was further pleaded that the plot was purchased by the grandfather of the defendant and the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff being father and elder brother of the joint Hindu family. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.