The need for the licensor to be vigilant and take prompt action to evict the licensee from the premises after the termination of the license.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja J. (Oral) - In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, has been reversed and a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction, filed at the instance of respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs has been decreed.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction along with prayer for permanent injunction stating therein that they had purchased the suit property i.e. House No.681, Sector 21-B, vide registered sale deed dated 08.06.2011 from respondent No.4 herein. It was further submitted that at the time of execution of sale deed, the possession of first and second floor was handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs, whereas the appellants remained in occupation of the ground floor as licensee. As per the plaint, the possession of ground floor was retained by the present appellants as licensee, with the promise that they shall vacate the same within a period of 4/5 months, as they were looking for rented accommodation for their own. It has been further submitted that despite repeated requests, the appellants did not hand over the possession of the ground floor, hence, a suit for mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction was filed.

3. On notice, the appellants being defendants No.1 to 4 filed their written statement stated therein that respondent No.4 herein had no right to sell the property in question to respondents No.1 to 3. It has been further submitted that in a family partition, the property in question fell into the share of late Ajay Bakshi (husband of appellant No.1).

4. The learned trial court, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016, dismissed the suit holding that the same was not maintainable in the present form. It was held that respondents No.1 to 3 being owners were required to file suit for possession based on title being an efficacious remedy available to them rather than file a suit for mandatory injunction. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016, respondents No.1 to 3 filed their first appeal before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017, has allowed the appeal filed at the instance of respondents No.1 to 3, holding that once, the appellants have not been able to establish their right, title or interest over the suit property through their predecessor-in-interest late Mr.Ajay Bakshi, as such, their status remained as licensee and the suit for mandatory injunction could have been entertained having been filed at the instance of original owner. The learned First Appellate Court has also directed respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee within a period of one month from the date of passing its judgment and decree, as a condition precedent. It is the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017, which has been challenged by way of present appeal.

5. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants that though respondents No.1 to 3 have been proved to be owners of the suit property, still remedy of filing a suit for possession was available to them instead of filing a suit for mandatory injunction which was not even maintainable. He further submitted that the learned first appellate court committed an error of law while reversing a well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the records, I find no legal infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court. It has been concurrently held by the courts below that respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from respondent No.4 her