KULDIP RAJ Vs. ROOP RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was a lessee of the premises in question and the learned courts below have erred in law in treating him as licensee and decreed the suit of the respondents (plaintiff).

(2.) In order to examine the legality and propriety of this submission, reference to facts may be necessary.

(3.) Plaintiff Kishan Chand, who had died during the pendency of the suit and was prosecuted by the legal representatives, filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute, more particularly identified in the map annexed to the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff had purchased the shop by means of registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996 and had inducted his brother, defendant, as licensee to carry on the business of bakery in the shop in question as licensee, He terminated the licence and wanted the defendants Kuldip Raj to vacate the premises. He served a registered notice dated 18.5.1993 and 28.7.1993 revoking the licence and asked for possession. Having failed to achieve any result, the present suit was instituted.