A family member in possession of property granted through permissive usage occupies the status of a licensee. Such license is revocable at the owner's will, entitling the owner to recover possession and claim occupancy charges, provided no legal evidence proves the occupant's claim to independent ownership or ancestral interest.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Mandatory Injunction for directing the Appellant/Defendant and his family to remove their belongings from the Suit property and for Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendant/Appellant from creating any third party right in the Suit property, has been decreed by the learned District Judge.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. CS DJ 807/2019 for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction for removing the Defendant from the Suit property and for Permanent Injunction from creating third party rights in the Suit property.

3. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff had acquired property bearing No. E-87, Dharampal Colony, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property), on the basis of GPA/Agreement to Sell and Affidavit dated 12.04.1994 from the erstwhile owner, Dharam Vir Singh. He is in possession since the said date i.e. 12.04.1994 and exercising exclusive rights of ownership in the Suit property.

4. The Plaintiff demolished and reconstructed the property, in the year 2004. The Defendant Bijender Singh, being the son of the Plaintiff, was allowed to reside in the front portion of the First Floor of the Suit premises, purely on the permissive basis. The area in occupation of the Defendant admeasured 75 sq. yards. The relations between the Plaintiff and Defendant over a period of time, became strained due to acts and omission of the Defendant.

5. It was claimed that the Defendant made the life of the Plaintiff living hell with constant harassment, embarrassment and agony to the Plaintiff and his family members. He, therefore did not wish to keep the Defendant in the Suit premises and requested him in August, 2019 to vacate the property, but the Defendant failed to remove himself and refused to abide by the request of the Plaintiff; rather he threatened to part with the possession of the Suit property to create a third party rights in the Suit property.

6. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant who is continuing in the Suit premises, is liable to pay profit/damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which is the prevailing market rate of rent of the Suit premises.

7. He thus, filed a Suit seeking Mandatory Injunction for directing the Defendant to vacate the premises and Permanent Injunction for restraining him from creating third party rights. The Plaintiff also sought pendent lite and future decree @ Rs.10,000/- per month, towards unauthorized occupation of the Defendant in the Suit premises.

8. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement took the preliminary objection that the Suit property had fallen to the share of the Defendant, by way of Oral Family Settlement. Not only this, he had invested his whole life savings in construction of the entire property bearing No. E-87, Dharmpal Colony, New Delhi. The Plaintiff now with a dishonest intention, intends to usurp the property.

9. It is claimed