JUDGMENT

Pankaj Mithal, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajul Shrivastav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. None appeared for the plaintiff-respondent despite service.

2. After having lost from all the three courts below, the defendant to the suit has preferred this appeal.

3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises which is part of H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi and for mesne profits on the averment that he is the owner of the said property by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.04.2002, power of attorney, a memo of possession and a receipt of payment of sale consideration as well as a “will” of the defendant-appellant bequeathing the said property in his favour; the possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to the agreement to sell subsequently on the request of the defendant-appellant the plaintiff-respondent allowed the defendant-appellant to occupy the ground floor and one room on the first floor of it for a period of 3 months as a licencee; the defendant-appellant failed to vacate the suit premises despite expiry of the licence period and termination of licence vide