VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit, impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 20.12.2012 and the first appellate court dated 22.9.2016; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction against the defendant/Sh. Amaresh Ganguli to vacate the first floor of the property being House No.A-16, Chitranjan Park, Kalkaji, New Delhi admeasuring 320 sq. yds. and handover its possession to the appellant/plaintiff, has been dismissed. Appellant/plaintiff had also claimed mesne profits till the delivery of possession.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he was the owner of the entire property A-16, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit/subject property) and which was leased to him in terms of a lease deed dated 27.9.1976 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that he had constructed the ground floor portion and occupied the same with his family members and since when he is residing on the ground floor with his family members. It was further pleaded in the plaint by the appellant/plaintiff that he got a plan sanctioned for construction of the first floor in the year 1983 and raised construction thereon in the year 1984. The defendant in the suit was pleaded to be the younger brother of the appellant/plaintiff. I may note that the original defendant in the suit Sh. Amaresh Ganguli expired during the pendency of the proceedings and he was substituted by his legal heirs who are the respondents herein. Reference to the defendant therefore will, as per the context, mean and include reference to the original defendant or the present respondents. It was pleaded in the plaint that since the defendant was a real younger brother of the appellant/plaintiff and he was staying at the rented house and which was to be vacated hence the appellant/plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the first floor of the suit property for some time. It was pleaded that licence of the defendant was terminated initially orally and thereafter by means of a notice dated 18.10.1988. Since the defendant failed to vacate the house, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits came to be filed.

3. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded that the suit property was leased to the father of the parties Sh. Ashutosh Ganguli by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India vide agreement dated 28.4.1969 and which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar at Serial No. 2931 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 2177 at pages 174-180 on 30.4.1969. It was pleaded that the father of the parties Sh. Ashutosh Ganguli had paid the cost of the plot being the premium amount as also other charges totaling to Rs.1920+1097+144 as stated in the lease agreement dated 28.4.1969. It was also pleaded that further charges towards the ground rent of the property were also paid by the father Sh. Ashutosh Ganguli. It was pleaded in the written statement by the defendant that the father Sh. Ashutosh Ganguli expired intestate on 4.4.1971 leaving behind a total of 9 legal heirs i.e his widow Smt. L. Ganguli, his sons being the two parties to the present suit namely Sh. Arun Ganguli and Sh. Amaresh Ganguli and the third son Sh. Ashok Ganguli and five daughters namely Smt. Swati Chatterjee, Smt. Meena Banerji, Smt. Shukla Bhattacharya, Smt. Meera Mukherji and Smt. Shubhra Banerji. It was pleaded that all the legal heirs of late Sh. Ashutosh Ganguli were the joint owners of the suit property. It was pleaded that since the appellant/plaintiff said that he was working with the Government of India and he could therefore get a house building loan from the Government of India, therefore, all the legal heirs of th