J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Defendant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Delhi in CS No. 1598/2016 titled ‘Ashok Kumar Malik vs. Ravi Malik’, whereby the Suit filed by the Plaintiff for Possession and Damages/Mesne Profits in respect of second floor of property bearing No. 1241, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”), was decreed.

2. The case of the Plaintiff / Respondent was that he had purchased the Suit Property from Smt. Swaran Kanta, from his self-acquired funds, in the year 1985. The property was initially a leasehold property, and was subsequently, converted into freehold property, and a Registered Conveyance Deed dated 11.08.2000 Ex.PW-1/1, was executed in favour of the Plaintiff / Respondent. He has claimed that he was the sole and absolute owner of the Suit Property.

3. The ground floor and the first floor were occupied by the Respondent/Plaintiff and his family members. In the year 1988, he had permitted the Appellant/Defendant, his brother, and his family members, to use and occupy one room with attached bathroom and kitchen on the first floor of the Suit Property. The remaining portion of the first floor of the Suit Property was in the occupation of the deceased son i.e. Sh. Sanjay Malik, of the Plaintiff, who had died on 03.10.2010.

4. In the year 2010, renovation of the suit property was undertaken, and during this period the Appellant and his family members were permitted to occupy two rooms with attached toilet, verandah and kitchen, admeasuring approx. 62.25 square meters, on the second floor of the Suit Property.

5. It was alleged that subsequently, the conduct of the Appellant became hostile and he started creating disturbances in the peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the Respondent. Despite repeated requests made by the Respondent to vacate the premises, the Appellant failed to hand over possession.

6. Consequently, the Respondent issued a Legal Notice dated 09.09.2013 to the Appellant, thereby revoking the Licence granted in his favour, and called upon him to vacate the portion under his occupation, on or before 30.09.2013. Further, the Defendant replied to the said Legal Notice on 13.09.2013, wherein he claimed himself to be the co-owner of the Suit Property on the basis of a family settlement, and despite service of the said Legal Notice dated 09.09.2013, the Appellant failed to vacate the premises and continued to remain in unauthorized occupation of the same.

7. The Plaintiff therefore, filed a Suit for Possession and damages/mesne profits at the rate of ₹20,000 per month, with effect from 01.10.2013, till the handing over of vacant possession.

8. The Appellant/Defendant contested the suit by filing a Written Statement, wherein he denied the allegations made in the Plaint and claimed that he was not a Licensee, but a co-owner of the Suit Property, having an equal share with the Plaintiff therein.

9. It was submitted that he had been residing in the Suit Property since 1987, as a co-owner and not as a licensee, as claimed by the Plaintiff. It was explained that he was born on 15.02.1964, and his father Late Sh. Moolchand Malik expired when he was about 06 years old. Plaintiff was the elder brother of the Defendant. He studied upto class XII, and in the year 1981 he started working with the Plaintiff at Shop No.277/8 & 9, Pathak Karor, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, which was a printing, photoshop and stationery supplies business. He continued to work with the Plaintiff in the shop till the year 1989, whatever was earned by the Defendant, between the period 1981-1989, was handed over to the Plaintiff, who was maintaining the accounts of the business.

10. In the year 1989, Defendant started his own separate business in the name o