A.K. PATHAK, J.

I.A. No. 2277/2015 (u/O 12 R 6 CPC by the Plaintiff)

1. Plaintiff is father of defendant no.1 and father-in-law of defendant no.2. He is aged about 69 years. He has filed this suit for mandatory injunction and damages against the defendants, praying therein that by way of mandatory injunction defendants be directed to remove their goods from the first floor portion of the house no. D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and handover the vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff; defendants be restrained from selling, alienating, assigning any portion of the suit property to any third party; and to pay damages @ Rs.1000/- per month for the use and occupation of the suit premises.

2. Plaintiff has claimed himself to be the absolute owner of the house no. D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. He has alleged that defendant no.1 was permitted to live in the suit property being his son. After the marriage of defendant no. 1 with defendant no. 2 on 18th November, 2011, defendant no.2 also started living in the suit property along with defendant no.1. Defendants were permitted to live in the suit property as a ‘licensee’. Plaintiff along with his two daughters is living in the property bearing no. D3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, but in the different portion. After some time defendant no.2 started creating problems by her behaviour, as detailed in the plaint. She would pick up fights with the plaintiff’s family members. At the instigation of defendant no.2, defendant no.1 also started misbehaving with the plaintiff and other family members. Vide a public notice dated 3rd August, 2013 published in the newspaper “The Statesman”, plaintiff disowned his son, that is, defendant no.1. On 3rd August, 2013 itself, plaintiff terminated the licence and called upon the defendants to remove their goods and vacate the suit property. Defendant no.1 did take up a separate accommodation on rent, however, defendants did not leave the suit premises. Later, defendant no.1 left the suit premises but defendant no.2 continued to occupy the same. Defendant no. 2 has also implicated the plaintiff in criminal cases. It is submitted that defendants have no right to live in the suit premises after the licence had been terminated by the plaintiff.

3. Defendant no.1 has neither filed written statement nor has appeared in Court despite service. Defendant no.2 has filed written statement. Defendant no.2 has claimed that suit property also belongs to defendant no.1. She has denied that plaintiff is the absolute owner of house no. D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. According to her, Late Shri Rang Behari Lal Tandon was the absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff is his adopted son. Shri Rang Behari Lal Tandon died intestate. He was survived by his widow Smt. Kamla Tandon and adopted son, that is, plaintiff. She has denied that defendant no.1 had been residing in the suit property as a licensee. As per defendant no.2, she had been living in the suit property after the marriage which is a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) read with Section 17(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”, for short), thus, she is occupying the suit property in her own independent legal rights. She has denied that she had spoiled the atmosphere of the house by her conduct. On the contrary, plaintiff, defendant no.1 and other family members had been treating her with cruelty. She has alleged that defendant no.1 and plaintiff are in collusion with each other.

4. Plaintiff and defendant no.2 have levelled allegations and counter allegations against each other. According to the defendant no.2, plaintiff and other family members had been ill-treating her after the marriage. As per the plaintiff, defendant no.2 had been troubling him and other family members. This Court is