VIPIN SANGHI, J.

C.M. No.13397/2015

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RSA 282/2015 and C.M. No.13396/2015

3. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2015 passed by the learned ADJ-02 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No.06/2015. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts (East) in Suit No.127/2011 titled Smt. Gunmala Devi Jain Vs. Kapil Jain & Others.

4. The appellant No.1/ Neha Jain is married to respondent No.2/ Sh.Kapil Jain. Appellant No.2 is the minor daughter of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is the grandmother-in-law of appellant No.1 and the grandmother of respondent No.2.

5. The case of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff in the suit was that she is the sole and absolute owner and in possession of the suit property bearing No.B-37, Vivek Vihar Phase-II, Delhi – 110 095. She stated that the property consisted of ground floor, first floor and second floor. Prior to 25.02.2011, the plaintiff was residing with her granddaughter-in-law, i.e. the appellant No.1 on the ground floor of the suit property. However, thereafter she shifted to first floor of the suit property and started residing with her son Sh. Anil Jain. The plaintiff claimed that she allowed her grandson Sh.Kapil Jain to occupy one room, kitchen, bathroom on the ground floor on license basis. On 03.01.2011, defendant No.1, i .e. Sh.Kapil Jain left the said premises. However, appellant No.1, the wife of Sh. Kapil Jain and her minor daughter/ appellant No.2 continued to occupy the ground floor premises, as aforesaid. The plaintiff claimed that on account of the short tempered and quarrelsome nature of appellant No.1, the plaintiff did not wish to keep the appellant No.1 in the premises. Consequently, a legal notice dated 07.03.2011 was served on the appellant No.1 terminating her license and calling upon her to vacate the suit premises. Since she did not vacate the premises, a suit for injunction and ejectment was preferred against the appellants. The plaintiff also sought a perpetual injunction against the appellants, to restrain them from creating any third party interest in respect of the premises in occupation of the appellants, i.e. one room, one kitchen and toilet on the ground floor of back side portion of premises bearing No.B-37, Vivek Vihar Phase-II, Delhi – 110 095. Further injunctive reliefs were also prayed for.

6. The suit was contested by the appellants. Defendant No.1/ Sh. Kapil Jain was proceeded ex-parte on 13.09.2011. The appellants disputed the ownership of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the suit property was purchased by the great grandfather of Sh.Kapil Jain as benami property in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a housewife, and was not earning anything at that time. It was claimed that defendant No.1/ husband had a share in the suit property.

7. Upon issues being framed, the parties led their respective evidence. The conveyance deed (Exhibit PW-1/1) recorded the plaintiff as the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. The appellant No.1 admitted that she entered into the suit property upon her marriage with Sh.Kapil Jain/ respondent No.1. The Trial Court took note of the admission of appellant No.1 in her cross-examination that the property in question was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. Since the appellants failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in the suit property, the Trial Court held that the status of the defendants was merely that of a licensee. Since the license had been revoked, they had no right to occupy the property of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the appellants to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to pla