The main legal point established in the judgment is that a daughter-in-law, in this case, was merely a licensee and had no right to reside in the house after the cancellation of the license by the original owner.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Kumar Birla, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay Sinha along with Sri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad in Civil Suit No. 839 of 2017, Kamal Kishore Gaur Vs. Smt. Richa Gaur.

3. A suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant herein, who is daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. Relevant facts are that after marriage the defendant started living with her husband, son of the plaintiff, but subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between them and the plaintiff divested his son and daughter-in-law on 25.7.2017 from his property and asked them to leave the house, which belongs to the plaintiff. Thereafter, son of the plaintiff, namely, Vikas Gaur, husband of the defendant-appellant herein, left the house and started living elsewhere. The suit for mandatory injunction was filed on the ground that the defendant is a licensee and has no right to reside in the house in question after cancellation of license by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that several matrimonial disputes including criminal cases are pending between the husband and wife, wherein plaintiff and other family members were also implicated.

4. The Trial Court framed six issues. For the purpose of considering the appeal at the admission stage three issues are relevant, namely, (1) whether the defendant is licensee in the house in question; (2) whether the defendant is entitled to live in the house in question; and (3) to what relief the plaintiff is entitled for. On issue Nos. 1 and 2 it was found by the Trial Court that the defendant was a mere licensee and has no right to reside in the house in question after cancellation of the licence by the original owner i.e. the plaintiff. The suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to handover the possession of the property in question to the plaintiff otherwise the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the possession of the suit property through Court.

5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the trial court has not considered the right of the daughter-in-law, who is residing in the house in dispute since 2012 and that admittedly, her husband is residing in another house and is not maintaining her, therefore, she is entitled to reside in the house in question as daughter-in-law as soon after marriage she had started living in this house and has a right to reside therein.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the same and submits that the law is settled that the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the house and admittedly, husband of the defendant is living separately and license of the defendant, who is living in the house, was legally terminated by the plaintiff, therefore, she has no right to reside in the house in question. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 29.9.2015 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in First Appeal No. 76 of 2014 (Smt. Sunita vs Smt. Brahmwati And Another) whereby the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. On perusal of record I find that admitted fact is that plaintiff is the owner of the house in question; son of the plaintiff i.e. husband of the defendant- Vikas Gaur, who is living separately, has been divested from the property and was asked to leave the house by his father, the plaintiff.

9. Under such circumstances, she has no right to reside in the house in question after cancellation of license by the original owner i.e. the plaintiff herein. A reference may be made in this regard, to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra and another vs. Taruna Batra (Smt), (2007) 3 SCC 169. Parag