The main legal point established in the judgment is that a licensee can be implied from the conduct of the grantor, and a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable after termination of the license.

1. This is plaintiff s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code ) challenging the view taken by the learned District Judge, Amritsar holding that the defendant-respondent could not have been held to be licensee merely because her husband Paramjit Singh was a licensee under the plaintiff-appellant as the license like the tenancy rights is not inheritable. It has further been held that in such a situation, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to vacate one room in the suit property was not maintainable. The aforementioned view is based on the judgement of Madras High Court in Alagiri Chetty V/s. Muthuswami Chetty, AIR 1940 Madras 102 and a judgement of this Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi V/s. Bhola Nath, 1987 Shimla LJ 489. The view taken by the learned trial Court holding the defendant-respondent as a licensee has been set aside. The trial Court had also held in its judgement and decree dated 7-10-1997 that the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 16-10-1963.

2. The question of law which requires determination in the instant appeal is as under :-

"Whether status of the defendant-respondent as a licensee of the suit property could be implied in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Easements Act, 1882 ?"

3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction for direction to the defendant-respondent to vacate one room as per the site plan on the basis that she is owner of the suit property. Paramjit Singh husband of the defendant-respondent was her brother. He was allowed by the plaintiff-appellant to live in one room as a licensee because he was a student at that time. The defendant-respondent is stated to be the widow of her brother Paramjit Singh who had died and she is asserted to have stepped into the shoes of her husband by becoming a licensee. The plaintiff-appellant is alleged to have served a notice dated 11-7-1991 and terminated her license but despite notice she has failed to vacate one room.

4. The defendant-respondent in her written statement has raised the plea that the plaintiff-appellant was not the owner of the suit property. It was claimed that the suit property was purchased by the mother of plaintiff-appellant and deceased-Paramjit Singh, husband of the defendant-respondent. However, in the sale deed the name of the plaintiff-appellant was used. She also claimed that mother of the plaintiff-appellant was also owner of another house bearing No. 242/8 situated in Hussainpura, Amritsar. Paramjit Singh is alleged to have inherited that house on the basis of a Will dated 6-5-1980. It has further been claimed that Paramjit Singh constructed the house which is the suit property and it consists of eight rooms, two shops, one store and two kitchens. The construction had started in the year 1965 and it was completed in the year 1970. The water and electric connections are claimed to be in the name of Paramjit Singh and he started residing in the suit property. He lived there peacefully till 1981. It is claimed that house No. 242/8 situated in Hussainpura, Amritsar was in the name of Paramjit Singh, deceased husband of the defendant-respondent and the plot on which the suit property has been constructed by him was in the name of plaintiff-appellant. A claim has been made that on the basis of an oral agreement, the plaintiff-appellant and Paramjit Singh deceased-husband of the defendant-respondent had agreed to mutually exchange the two properties. As a consequence, Paramjit Singh, deceased husband of the defendant-respondent handed over the possession of House No. 242/8 situated in Hussainpura, Amritsar to the plaintiff-appellant and that thereafter she started residing in the said house. The possession of the suit property is claimed to have remained with her deceased husband Paramjit Singh. It is further claimed that Paramjit Sing