The legal principle established is that the status of a licensee on a property is determined by the termination of the license by the owners, and the licensee cannot acquire any right or title in the property once the license is terminated.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - Suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking decree of mandatory injunction to direct the appellant/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property (as detailed in para 1 of the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court) with a further prayer to pay for usage and occupation charges/mesne profits @ Rs.7,000/- per month for each Kotha, till handing over its vacant possession. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2019 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 31.05.2022. The appellant/defendant is now before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

3. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs may be noticed as thus. The plaintiffs along with Prem Chand and Radhe Shyam are owners of the suit property. In the year 2000, father of defendant, namely Risala, was employed as a chowkidar on a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/- by the plaintiffs. From the year 2004 onwards said Risala was permitted to stay in the suit property i.e. Kothas as he found it difficult to commute daily from his village on account of his old age. Risala died in the year 2005 and thereafter, on the request of the defendant, the latter was employed as a chowkidar by the plaintiffs, on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. The defendant along with his family after obtaining permission of the plaintiffs, continued to live in the suit property and also use the tubewell which was installed there. However, in the month of July, 2016, the plaintiffs learnt from their neighbours that the defendant and his family were indulging in illegal activities in the suit property. Resultantly, the defendant and his family were asked not only to vacate the suit property but even his services as chowkidar were terminated by the plaintiffs. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the status of the defendant and his family was one of a licensee and licence of the defendant stood verbally terminated after he was removed as chowkidar by the plaintiffs in the month of July 2016. Still further, it was averred that since the defendant refused to vacate the suit property after the termination of his licence and in spite of the oral requests by the plaintiffs, the former was also liable to pay usage and occupation charges to the latter, in addition to handing back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

4. On being put to notice, the defendant denied the pleaded case of the plaintiffs. It was averred that his father had been engaged more than 60 years back to look after the suit property by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The father of the defendant had performed his duties honestly and on account of services rendered by him, the previous owner of the property had given suit property for residence to their father Risala and his family. Hence, Risala had become owner of the suit property, and after his death, the defendant had stepped into his shoes as owner. Ever since then it was being used by the defendant and his family for his residence. The defendant denied being in unauthorized occupation of the suit property and it was rather submitted that the status of the defendant was one of an owner and not a licensee hence the question of termination of licence of the defendant did not arise much less making the payment to the plaintiffs towards usage and occupation charges.

5. Both the Courts below, on the basis of material and other evidence led, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction on the ground that no right or title could have been said to accrue to the defendant in the suit property merely because he was employed as a chowkidar by the plaintiffs and allowed to reside therein. The defendant was also directed to hand over vacant possession of t