IMPORTANT POINT
Right to reside does not extend beyond period of licence.

Anu Malhotra, J.—The appellant vide the present regular second appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2018 of the First Appellate Court of the ADJ-02 (South-East) in RCA No.20423/2016 which upheld the judgment dated 16.11.2016 of the JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South-East District, Saket, New Delhi in CS No.51412/2016 whereby the suit of the plaintiff therein arrayed as the respondent no.1 herein was decreed as under:—

“The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff Ms. Santosh SP Singh with the direction to the defendant no.1 Dr. Rachna Khanna Singh to vacate and handover vacant peaceful possession of the suit portion as shown in blue colour in the Site Plan of document in support of plaint, i.e. the flat at A-7, 2nd Floor, Front Portion, Kailash Colony, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi-110048. A Decree of Permanent Injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant thereby restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, alienating and granting any third party interest in the suit portion or in the property bearing no.A-7, 2nd Floor, Front Portion, Kailash Colony, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi-110048. The defendant no.2 has admittedly already vacated the suit property. Defendant no.1 is directed to handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit property within three months from the date of this order.”

2. The appellant is the grand son-in-law of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 who was arrayed as the defendant no.2 to the suit filed by the plaintiff is the grand-son of the respondent no.1 being the son of one of the daughters of the respondent no.1. The plaintiff/ respondent no.1, a senior citizen aged 88 years at the time of institution of the suit on 02.12.2014 as per pleadings of the appellant and the respondent no.1 on the record before the learned trial Court, is the sole and exclusive owner of herself acquired property bearing no. A-7, Kailash Colony, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi purchased by her vide a sale deed dated 26.03.2004. The said property as per averments made in the plaint consisted of 1000 square yard plot and built up house consisting of ground floor, first floor and barsati and in the year 2008 the house was reconstructed and now comprises of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. It has been averred in the plaint that in terms of the collaboration agreement with the builder, the builder was given the first floor in lieu of providing a completed constructed building and that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 sold a portion of the ground floor to the builder and four apartments were built on the 2nd floor and 3rd floor i.e. two on each floor with the stairwell and lift in the center, out of which, the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 is in occupation of one apartment and that the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 has given one apartment each to her two daughters who admittedly reside in the same.

3. The defendant no.1/ appellant and the defendant no.2/ respondent no.2 herein through the pleadings to the suit on the record of the appellant and the respondent no.1 bring forth that the defendants/ i.e. the appellant and her spouse, i.e. the respondent no.2 herein on re-construction of the said premises started living at A-7, 2nd Floor, Front Portion, Kailash Colony, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi/ the suit portion.

4. Through the non-denial by the defendant no.1 i.e. the appellant herein of assertions in para 6 of the plaint, it is brought forth that the defendant no.1/ appellant herein along with her spouse/ the defendant no.2/ respondent no.2 herein started residing in the premises in suit in 2010. Whereas it is the contention of the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 herein that she had permitted her grand-son, defendant no.2/ respondent no.2 and his wife, defendant no.1/ appellant herein to live in the said premises as licencees, it is contended by the appellant/ respondent no.1 that it was always understood and explained that the defendants/ the respond