JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh in a Civil Suit No.1293 of 2021, whereby the suit for mandatory injunction and recovery filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed, has been dismissed.

2. The case of plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of the suit property i.e. House No.3234, Housing Board Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh being the Class-I legal heir of his mother, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. Plaintiff and defendants are close relatives and in October, 2020, defendants requested him to allow them to live in a part of the premises along with their daughter Kajal for a few days with the assurance that they will shift to some other suitable accommodation, where they are running some business. Plaintiff allowed them to use a part of the premises and later on, he requested them to vacate the same but they refused and rather started misbehaving with him. Plaintiff approached the police where defendants sought time till 15.03.2021 to vacate the demised premises. Instead of vacating the premises, they filed a suit against the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in their possession but no interim order was passed in the said suit. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 10.06.2021 Ex.P4 was issued to the defendants, calling upon them to vacate the suit property and to hand over its possession to him but of no help. It is alleged that defendants are in occupation of the portion of the demised premises as licensees and their licence has already been revoked by issuing the aforesaid legal notice. Now, they are also liable to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, which is the prevailing market rate of rent in the area. By way of the present suit, a decree for mandatory injunction was sought for directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of three rooms and verandah on the front side and one room with kitchen, bathroom and toilet on the rear portion of the suit property.

3. Defendants in their written statement have challenged the suit preliminarily on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts. On merits, it has been pleaded that they are residing in the suit property on the basis of a family settlement. The son of defendant No.1 and plaintiff were very close to each other and they were running business together. After the death of defendants’ son, plaintiff proposed to the defendants to come and live with him being family members. Thereafter, defendants raised some construction in the suit property on the advice of plaintiff and spent about Rs.3.5 lacs on the construction of one room and making improvement in the house. It was also agreed that if defendants will shift from the premises, plaintiff will pay them the value of the construction along with interest @18% per annum. After the construction was completed, plaintiff wanted to forcibly dispossess them. It is also submitted that the statement recorded before the police was given under pressure. It has been admitted that defendant No.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff. It is also alleged that since defendants are residing in the suit property on account of family settlement, there is no question of payment of any rent. Ownership of plaintiff or his mother has also been disputed and suit has also been challenged on account of non-impleading of the owner of the suit property. However, it has been admitted that plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property before they started residing in a portion of the same as depicted in the head note of the plaint with the permission of the plaintiff. Dismissal of the suit was s