Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri A.K. Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant appellant and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for plaintiff respondent.

2. The plaintiff respondent after terminating the licence of the defendant appellant vide notice dated 10.04.01 instituted a suit on 14.11.2005 for mandatory injunction directing the defendant appellant to handover possession of the demised premises. The suit has been decreed by the courts below.

3. In assailing the judgment, order and decree of the courts below the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that? the suit for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation. The relief of possession is ancillary and therefore the limitation provided for recovery of possession would not be attracted.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that after the determination of the licence a suit for possession in the form of mandatory injunction is maintainable and where the suit is not immediately filed then a suit for recovery of possession for which the limitation is 12 years is permissible subject to payment of requisite court fees.

5. The court below has co