Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, this appellant is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and though he agreed to quit and vacate the suit schedule property, he did not vacate the same. Hence, he was forced to file a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The contents of the plaint is that the schedule property comprised of a house bearing Door No.1-S-21-1583 which is shown as schedule ‘B’ property in the plaint. The defendant was residing in the schedule ‘B’ premises prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of this plaintiff by way of permissive occupant under his erstwhile owner. During execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant had promised him that he would vacate and handover the schedule ‘B’ premises to the plaintiff within four months. Accordingly, the plaintiff had also permitted the defendant No.1 to reside in the schedule ‘B’ premises. As the defendant did not comply with the promise made by him, the plaintiff by revoking the permission which was granted earlier had asked the defendant to vacate the premises which is not been complied with by the defendant No.1 till the date of filing of this suit and though the plaintiff subsequently revoked the permission by issuing legal notice dated 20.01.2014. The defendant has continued to be in possession of the premises which amounts to un-authorized possession and further defendant has also un-authorizedly put up construction in the pavement/roadway abutting to the schedule ‘A’ premises.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement that there was an agreement of sale in existence in his favour and also he questioned the title of the plaintiff. As the defendant had turned hostile towards the plaintiff, the plaintiff has approached this Court.

4. The defendant No.1 in his written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and no sale deed dated 01.10.2012 as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint got registered in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff was never put in possession of the plaint schedule property. However, he admits the existence of schedule ‘B’ premises and contend that, he is in possession of the said house. He denied the very averment of the plaint that he is not in permissive possession under erstwhile owner as alleged by the plaintiff and also has denied that there was no correspondent between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to the effect that this defendant had agreed to vacate and handover the schedule ‘B’ house premises in favour of the plaintiff within four months. It is also contended that, when there arise no licensor or licensee relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, the question of plaintiff revoking the permission will not arise and he does not have any right to revoke the permission. It is contended that, originally the plaint schedule premises belongs to Smt. Bhavani and the same was granted to her by the Government under the provisions of PTCL Act and the alleged sale deed executed by said Bhavani in favour of the plaintiff without obtaining permission from the competent authority is bad in law and the same will not convey any right. It is also contended that, he had entered into agreement of sale with erstwhile owner on 17.05.2011 by paying entire sale consideration amount and she could not obtain the require