The court affirmed that mere occupation by a licensee does not confer ownership rights and emphasized the necessity for evidence in disputes over property ownership.

JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeals, the Appellants [Defendants before the learned Single Judge] in RFA (OS) No. 05/2017 and in RFA (OS) No. 10/2017, and the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] in RFA (OS) No. 06/2017, assail the correctness of the common judgement dated 28.11.2016 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgement‟] passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred to as „LSJ‟] in CS(OS) 2134/2006 & CC No. 990/2017, wherein the Plaintiff‟s suit was decreed against the Defendants in the said suit, directing the Defendants to handover the possession of the entire first floor and two rooms along with one bathroom on the second floor of the Property bearing No. A-8, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Suit Property‟], as shown in the site plan, within two months of receipt of this order. The Counter Claim filed by the Defendant stood dismissed in view of the Impugned Judgement passed in the suit.

2. Since the parties to the disputes are common, as is the Impugned Judgement, and the appeals arise out of an identical factual matrix involving overlapping parties and common questions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all the appeals by way of a common judgement. The discussions, however, shall be bifurcated, wherever necessary, while referring to the parties in the same manner.

3. Nevertheless, for the ease of reference and with the consent of the parties, RFA (OS) No.5/2017 is considered as a lead case. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this court shall be referred to in accordance with their respective status before the LSJ.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. For a comprehensive consideration of the issues involved, it is apposite, at the outset, to delineate the attendant factual matrix, which are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

4.1 The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the Suit Property, which was originally leased from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „MCD‟] pursuant to a perpetual lease dated 11.05.1971. It is stated that the Plaintiff thereafter constructed a three-storey building on the said plot from his own funds and resources.

4.2 It is further stated that the aforesaid property was subsequently converted into free-hold in favour of the Plaintiff vide a conveyance deed dated 05.01.2011. The Plaintiff bore all the expenses relating to the conversion, and on that basis, asserts exclusive ownership over the Suit Property as his self-acquired property.

4.3 The Defendant, elder brother of the Plaintiff, was allowed to use and occupy the first floor, and two rooms along with one bathroom on the second floor of the Suit Property, purely out of natural love and affection. No consideration was ever charged from the Defendant for such use or occupation.

4.4 The Plaintiff states that the oral licence granted in favour of the Defendant was revoked in September 2006. Upon revocation, the Defendant sought 15 days‟ time to shift, remove his belongings, and hand over the physical possession of the premises. However, despite such assurance, the Defendant failed to vacate the Suit Property. Consequently, a legal notice dated 26.10.2006 was issued to the Defendant.

4.5 Despite due service of the aforesaid notice, the Defendant neither replied thereto nor complied with its terms. In terms of the notice, the licence to occupy the Suit Property stood revoked, and the Defendant was granted seven days time to vacate the premises, and handover vacant and peaceful possession to the Plainti