This matter was listed for admission and earlier, the

matter was heard in part and today, the matter is listed for

reporting settlement since, there was an earlier move between

the parties with regard to the settlement is concerned but, no

settlement is entered into between the parties and the counsels

have argued the matter on merits.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that, this appellant is in permissive possession

of the suit schedule property and though he agreed to quit and

vacate the suit schedule property, he did not vacate the same.

Hence, he was forced to file a suit for permanent injunction and

mandatory injunction. The contents of the plaint is that the

schedule property comprised of a house bearing Door No.1-S-

21-1583 which is shown as schedule ‘B’ property in the plaint.

- 3 -

The defendant was residing in the schedule ‘B’ premises prior

to the execution of sale deed in favour of this plaintiff by way of

permissive occupant under his erstwhile owner. During

execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the

defendant had promised him that he would vacate and

handover the schedule ‘B’ premises to the plaintiff within four

months. Accordingly, the plaintiff had also permitted the

defendant No.1 to reside in the schedule ‘B’ premises. As the

defendant did not comply with the promise made by him, the

plaintiff by revoking the permission which was granted earlier

had asked the defendant to vacate the premises which is not

been complied with by the defendant No.1 till the date of filing

of this suit and though the plaintiff subsequently revoked the

permission by issuing legal notice dated 20.01.2014. The

defendant has continued to be in possession of the premises

which amounts to un-authorized possession and further

defendant has also un-authorizedly put up construction in the

pavement/roadway abutting to the schedule ‘A’ premises.

3.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared and filed the written statement that there was an

agreement of sale in existence in his favour and also he

- 4 -

questioned the title of the plaintiff. As the defendant had

turned hostile towards the plaintiff, the plaintiff has approached

this Court.

4.

The defendant No.1 in his written statement denied

that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and

no sale deed dated 01.10.2012 as stated by the plaintiff in his

plaint got registered in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the

plaintiff was never put in possession of the plaint schedule

property. However, he admits the existence of schedule ‘B’

premises and contend that, he is in possession of the said

house. He denied the very averment of the plaint that he is not

in permissive possession under erstwhile owner as alleged by

the plaintiff and also has denied that there was no

correspondent between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to

the effect that this defendant had agreed to vacate and

handover the schedule ‘B’ house premises in favour of the

plaintiff within four months. It is also contended that, when

there arise no licensor or licensee relationship between the

plaintiff and defendant, the question of plaintiff revoking the

permission will not arise and he does not have any right to

revoke the permission. It is contended that, originally the

- 5 -

plaint schedule premises belongs to Smt. Bhavani and the

same was granted to her by the Government under the

provisions of PTCL Act and the alleged sale deed executed by

said Bhavani in favour of the plaintiff without obtaining

permission from the competent authority is bad in law and the

same will not convey any right. It is also contended that, he

had entered into agreement of sale with erstwhile owner on

17.05.2011 by paying entire sale consideration amount and she

could not obtain the required permission from the concerned

authority to transfer the schedule property in favour of this

defendant. Hence, he could not get the sale deed re