( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th February, 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No. 60/2001 (Old Suit No. 19/1991) decreeing the suit filed by the respondent no. 1.

( 2 ) ONE Roop Kumar (respondent No. 1 herein) brought a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against Prabhu Dayal (appellant herein ). The appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 7 (arrayed as defendant nos. 2 to 7 in the suit) were sons and daughters of late Shri Kapoor Chand. Plaintiff averred that his father Kapoor Chand was a tenant in shop No. 7707-07, Dharam Pura lodge, Clock Tower, Subji Mandi, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ) for the last 40 to 55 years. They carried on business originally of cycle tyres and repairs and laterly sold juice. They were lastly doing the business of cotton in the name of sharma Cotton Cording and Flour Mills. Shri kapoor Chand died intestate on 12th November, 1990 and his brother Vasudev died a bachelor on 25th November, 1990. According to the plaintiff Shri Vasudev some time lived in the shop and sometimes with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he (Shri vasudev) had executed a Will dated 22nd november, 1990 bequeathing his entire movable and immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1-Prabhu Dayal was an employee of Shri vasudev in the business carried on in the shops in dispute. Since the business of making quilts etc. was carried out late into the night the defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) sometimes was permitted to reside in the shops. On demise of both Shri Kapoor chand and Shri Vasudev the plaintiff had requested to Shri Prabhu Dayal, defendant no. 1 that his services were no longer required and asked him to leave the shop in dispute. Defendant No. 1 requested for permission to stay till he made alternative arrangements but later turned dishonest.

( 4 ) AS the licence -of the defendant No. 1 had been terminated, the plaintiff brought the suit seeking the following prayers :-

"the plaintiff prays that this Hon ble Court be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1. i) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from entering the shops nos. 7706-07, Dharam Pura Lodge, Clock tower, Subji Mandi, Delhi; or in the alternative for mandatory injunction commanding and directing the defendant No. 1 to vacate the said shops No. 7706-07 Dharam pura Lodge, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi Delhi, and/or ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from dealing in any mariner whatsoever or disposing of or appropriating to himself any of the assets or properties of Shri Vasu Dev alias Vasi Dev detailed in para 5 of the plaint; and/or iii) grant permission to the plaintiff under order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. As per para 14 hereinabove. iv) award costs df the suit to the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1; and/or v) grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 7, brothers and sisters of the plaintiff admitted the claim of the plaintiff. They sought permission to visit the shops in dispute and to safeguard their interest in the business and make inspections. Defendant No. 8 i. e. the Wakf Board also filed a written statement setting up a case that only Shri Vasudev Sharma was a tenant in the shops in dispute and that the tenancy rights could not have been willed away by any person.

( 6 ) IN the instant matter we are concerned only with the rights of the defendant No. 1 to occupy the shop in question. The defendant no. 1 in its written statement set up following claim :- "preliminary objections that the defendant No. 1 has been serving late Shri Vasudev Sharma and used to take care of him during his lifetime. In addition to this, the defendant No. 1 has been doing business in partnership with late Shri vasudev Sharma unde