JUDGMENT :- This appeal arises out of a suit for possession which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the allegation that the defendant-appellant had been inducted as a licencee by the former and the licence had been revoked. Despite the revocation of the licence, the defendant did not vacate and, therefore, possession was sought along with a claim for damages for unauthorised use and occupation, past, pendente lite and future. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. In this second appeal, Shri Markandey Katju, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the plaintiff was only one of the co-owners of the property and his own brother Nokhe Lal, who was another co-owner, had entered the witness box on behalf of the defendant-appellant and thus it should be held that the said co-owner wanted the defendant-appellant to remain in occupation of the accommodation. In this situation, the learned counsel contends that the suit could not be decreed at the instance of only one of the co-owners of the property. In my opinion, this contention is untenable. The finding of both the courts below is that the defendant-appellant had been inducted as a licensee by the plaintiff al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document