* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 15^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 07^th April, 2026 + RFA 70/2024, CM APPL. 5115/2024

1. MS. ANJU CHADHA W/O Mr. Virender Chadha R/O 136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi.

2. MR. VIRENDER CHADHA R/O 136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rishi Bharadwaj, Advocate.

versus

1. BHAVESH MADAN S/O Late Sh. R.C. Madan R/O 137, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi

2. SMT. REETU MADAN W/O Sh. Bhavesh Madan, R/O 137, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahindru & Mr. Birender Chaudhary, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. An Appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed on behalf of the South-East District, Saket Appellants Ms. Anju Chadha and Mr. Virender Chadha against Judgment dated 18.12.2023, whereby learned ADJ-01, New Delhi, has decreed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Damages and directed the Appellants to vacate the Suit Property within

30 days, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. CS DJ 619/2020 was filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / Bhavesh Madan and Reetu Madan for Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Damages against Anju Chadha/Respondent No.3 and her husband Virender Chadha Respondent No.4.

3. The facts as narrated in the Plaint, were that Plaintiffs Bhavesh Madan and Reetu Madan were registered owners and in legal possession of the Suit Property bearing No.136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as suit property), by virtue of Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009.

4. It was claimed that in the month of January, 2020, Defendant Nos.1 and 2, i.e. Anju Chadha (sister of Plaintiff Bhavesh Madan) and her husband Virender Chadha, came to India from Australia and expressed their desire to stay for a few days with the mother of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 to spend some time with her in her old age. As a humane gesture, Plaintiffs permitted the Defendants to reside in the Suit Property. The Defendant/Appellant had told the Respondent within a few days, he would be flying back to their home in Australia and assured that they would vacate the property as and when the Plaintiff desires. The stay of the Defendants got extended on account of Covid Pandemic Lockdown from 22.03.2020 onwards and they therefore, continued to stay in the same property.

5. The Plaintiff’s mother died on 17.06.2020 and the Appellants continued to stay in the property even after the demise of the mother. It is claimed that they were bare licensee without any charges being the real sister and brother-in-law of Plaintiff No.1.

6. The Plaintiff explained that he had been carrying on business from shop, office and small guest house at Paharganj, Delhi. The parents of Plaintiff No.1 had excluded the Defendant No.1, the real sister from their estate and bequeathed their properties located at Vasant Vihar, Faridabad and New Rohtak Road, Delhi, in favour of the Plaintiff and his younger brother, who lives in USA.

7. After the demise of the mother, Plaintiff had asked the Appellants about the status of commercial property No.25/15, New Rohtak Road, Delhi, but they seemed to have become dishonest and greedy for more money and were eyeing the properties of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1.

8. On 10.09.2020 the Plaintiff had asked the Appellants to make their arrangement and vacate the property and thereby terminated the permission to occupy the Suit property. However, they refused to vacate the property and extended open threats to the Plaintiffs.

9. The Defendant No.1 demanded jewellery of the mother which was kept in the locker, although she had no right to the same in terms of the Will of the mother. The Plaintiff left with no choice, agreed to give the jewellery of the mother to maintain peace in the family. It was agreed that after receiving the jewellery, the Defendants would vacate the property and would not interfere