A suit for mandatory injunction against an ex-licensee is effectively a suit for possession, invoking the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 and Order XV-A of the CPC.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 23.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟) passed by the learned Additional District Judge-10, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Trial Court‟) in Civil Suit, being CS No.18674/2016, titled Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust v. S. Shivinder Singh, allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 herein under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟) and directing the petitioners herein to make payment at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per month to the respondent no.1 from the date of the enactment of the Order XV-A of the CPC, that is, 12.11.2008. Background facts:

2. The facts that give rise to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent no.1, a Charitable Public Trust, has filed the Subject Suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, and damages with respect to the portions of the property bearing no. 1-A, Janpath, New Delhi- 110011 (hereinafter referred to as the „Suit Property‟) against Sh. Shivinder Singh, the father of the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the petitioner no.2, who has unfortunately expired on 09.06.2018. The petitioners herein were substituted as his legal heirs vide Order dated 28.01.2019 of the learned Trial Court.

3. It is alleged in the plaint that the Late S.B. Sir Sobha Singh, as the founder of the respondent no.1-Trust, was the owner in possession of the Suit Property. He executed an alleged Settlement dated 25.07.1972 in favour of the respondent no.1-Trust and handed over the possession of Suit Property to the Trust. It is stated that Late Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh, mother of Sh. Shivinder Singh (the Original Defendant), was the daughter of Late S.B. Sir Sobha Singh and the sister of the other Trustees. She was made a Trustee of the respondent no.1-Trust.

4. It is averred in the plaint, that after the death of her husband in the year about 1977-78, her father invited her to live with him at the cottages at the rear portion of the Suit Property. It is alleged that on 15.04.1985, a meeting was held of all the Trustees wherein it was decided that for the time being Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh may continue to live in the cottage along with other parts of the property in her possession, free of charge. It is stated that during her stay, she was given the authority to act as the custodian of some parts of the Suit Property. It is further alleged that it was well understood amongst Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh and the other interested parties in relation to the respondent no.1, that Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh was only being allowed/authorised to stay in the said premises out of love and affection and the same does not confer any right of ownership, adverse possession, tenancy, or lien, etc., in her favour, and it was further clarified that the privilege was given to her alone and it will not ipso facto entitle the legal representatives of Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh to occupy the said premises after her death or for any other reason whatsoever. It is stated that she agreed that she would hand over the peaceful possession of the Suit Property to the respondent no.1- Trust and its trustees, as and when it was demanded.

5. It is alleged that vide letter dated 15.12.1995, Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh was called upon to handover the possession of the Suit Property to the respondent no.1-Trust. It is averred that thereafter, Mrs. Mahinder Jaspal Singh and her family, including the petitioners herein and the original defendant, Sh. Shivinder Singh, continued to reside temporarily and unauthorisedly in the Suit Property.

6. It is stated that the Sh. Shivinder Singh executed an acknowledgement-cum-undertaking dated 01.10.1996 in the form of an affidavit to the respondent no.1-Trust, wherein it was acknowledged that their presence was temporary and h