Judgment

VARADARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against. the reversing judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 126 of 1979. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the learned Additional District Judge. Patiala allowed the plaintiffs appeal and decreed the suit.

2. The plaintiff/appellants case was that he had taken on lease under a lease-deed "dated 26-8-196.3 for a term of 10 years a plot of land measuring 51 X 118 situate near the Army Headquarters, Lower Mall, .Patiala for M/s. Jain Motors from its owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh. He was only a partner of M/s. Jain Motors in 1963, but later became its sole owner in 1967. The defendant/respondent took from the appellant on licence for one year under a deed dated 10-12-1969 the suit shed for carrying on the work of repair of motors, tractors etc. But since he did not vacate the shed after the expiry of the period he terminated the licence and filed the suit on 15-2-1973 for a mandatory injunction directing him to vacate the premises. The respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant sublet to him a plot of land in 1966-67 and he had raised a new construction thereon and is carrying on workshop business therein since then. He further contended that the relationship between the- parties was that of landlord and tenant and that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable.

3. The trial court found that M/s. Jain Motors were the lessees and that the respondent became a sub-tenant of a piece of land and constructed the suit shed thereon and that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and dismissed the suit. In the appeal the learned Additional District Judge set aside the trial courts, findings recorded in favour of the respondent and found that no rent is mentioned either in the document executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant or in the written statement and no rent receipt was produced by the respondent, and that the relationship between the parties was only one of licensor and licensee. On the question of delay in filing .the suit the learned Additional District Judge found that the parties remained busy in fighting out criminal cases till the end and that the present suit had been filed thereafter and there had been no undue delay and also that there was no challenge to the trial courts finding that the respondent had not put up any construction of his own and held that the suit for mandatory injunction against the licensee is maintainable. On these findings he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, directing the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the shed in dispute to the appellant.

4. In the second appeal the respondent filed an application for receiving as: additional evidence a sale-deed dated 27-8-1079 whereby be claimed to have purchased the entire property, from its original owner. The High Court called for a finding in that regard from the trial court which thereupon found that the respondent has purchased the property from its original owner by that sale deed. It was contended in the High Court that in view of that sale, it is, not open to the appellant to contend that the respondent in whom the title to the property has come to be vested after the, date of the suit, is liable to be ejected on the revocation of the license granted to him by the appellant. On the other hand, it was contended for the appellant that the fact that the respondent had purchased the property from its owner subsequent to the grant of the licence in favour of respondent does not make any difference to the appellants claim for recovering possession of the suit shed and that it is obligatory on the respondent to first surrender possession of the property after the licence had been revoked and then seek his remedy, according to law, on the basis of the title claimed by him. It was further contended that in view of the provisions of S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, t