JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J. 

Suit for mandatory injunction regarding suit property filed by plaintiff Smt. Kamlesh Gupta (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.12.2004. However, the appeal filed by her was accepted by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 04.04.2006 and consequently, the suit was decreed. It is against this reversal that defendant of the case Krishan Lal (appellant herein) has approached this Court.

2. Dispute is regarding premises No.6267/2-3 situated at Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, measuring 5' 3'x 26' (referred to as suit premises), on which plaintiff claims the defendant to be a licensee; whereas defendant claims that he is a tenant over it.

3.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that Sanjeev Kumar, Sandeep Kumar and Naveen Kumar @ Nischint Kumar sons of Parshotam Dass, were owners of property bearing No.6267/2 measuring 26' x 19' along with the demised premises 5' 3'x 26' bearing house tax No.6267/2-3 situated in Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Plaintiff purchased the entire property from Sanjeev Kumar etc. vide registered sale deed dated 09.09.1996 for valuable consideration. Out of the aforesaid property purchased by the plaintiff, her husband Gian Chand was in possession of the property bearing No.6267/2 as tenant @ ?200/- per month. On the other hand, the demised premises forming part of the entire property, was in occupation of the defendant as a licensee. The defendant, who earlier used to sell fruits on the chabutra of the building of the Punjab National Bank and later on, on the chabutra of the building of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was allowed to use the demised premises by Parshotam Dass, the father of the previous owners as licensee. As plaintiff wanted the demised premises for her own use and occupation, therefore, she revoked the license of the defendant by issuing a notice dated 14.10.1996 through her counsel, which was duly served upon him. Defendant did not vacate the premises and as such, compelled the plaintiff to file the suit seeking mandatory injunction.

3.2 The stand of the defendant in the written statement is that he is not a licensee on the suit property; rather, he is a tenant thereon @ ?200/-per month since 1984 and the said rent was later on enhanced to ?250/- per month in the year 1995 and that he has been regularly paying the rent to Parshotam Dass i.e. father of the previous owners of the premises. He further denied that plaintiff had purchased the demised premises. However, it was admitted that husband of the plaintiff was tenant in the property No.6267/2 forming part of the entire property.

3.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by both the parties was taken on record. As noted earlier, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that defendant was the tenant on the suit property and that the suit was not maintainable, as the petition should have been filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short the Act'] for seeking ejectment as per law. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been accepted by the First Appellate Court by holding the defendant to be the licensee on the suit property.

4. Assailing the aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Court, it is contended by ld. counsel for the appellant-defendant that appellant was inducted as a tenant by Parshotam Dass, the father of the previous owners, who was acting as their guardian. Ld. counsel contends that defendant had produced on file receipts Ex.R7 to R12 issued by said Parshotam Dass, who even appeared in the witness box as DW1, and proved those receipts to have been issued by him and in these circumstances, the appellate Court has fallen in error in holding the appellant as a licensee. Ld. counsel contends that the finding of the first Appellate Court to hold the receipts to be forged documents is also against record. Prayer is accord