135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.12.2025 GULZAR KHAN AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus RULDA KHAN .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the applicants/appellants. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-13311-C-2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicants/appellants have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

61 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA No.3645 of 2025 (O&M)

Defendants are in second appeal. The plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the property, in dispute.

2. As per plaintiff, the property in question was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat for construction of house. In the house, the defendants were inducted as licensees. The plaintiff claims to have terminated the licence and filed the present suit seeking directions to defendants to hand-

over-vacant possession of the property in dispute.

3. Defendants contested the suit claiming that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. The defendants are true and legal owners in possession of the suit property. It is the defendants who have constructed the house on the suit property. The plaintiff is a stranger to the same. Defendants further claim that the plaintiff having not paid ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property, he is not entitled for possession.

4. Both the Courts below after analyzing the evidence threadbare, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff successfully proved allotment in his favour by way of Exhibit P-2. Defendants on the other hand, apart from raising bald assertion, have not been able to lead any cogent evidence to prove their ownership or construction over the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed by the Courts below.

5. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. The primary contention raised is that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. Plaintiff could have filed suit for possession by paying ad valorem court fee on the market price of the suit property. He further submits that the defendants/appellants are in established possession of the suit property since 1990 and thus, cannot be dispossessed.

6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

7. The plaintiff has successfully proved his ownership over the suit property on the strength of documentary evidence in form of Transfer Deed bearing No.49 (Exhibit P-2). Plaintiff claims that the defendants were inducted as licensees and he has now revoked/cancelled the licence of the defendants from the property in dispute.

8. The plea raised by counsel for the appellants regarding non- maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction, sans merit and deserves to be rejected. Once, the licence granted in favour of the defendants by the plaintiff stands revoked, the plaintiff could well maintain the suit for mandatory injunction.

8.1. The issue of maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction filed by licensor seeking possession from licensee after revoking licence, came up for consideration before this Court in the case of ‘Delhi Gate Service vs. Galtex (India) Ltd.’, AIR 1962 Punjab 370. Suit was held to be maintainable. Ratio was followed in the case of ‘Subhash Chandra vs. Navnit Lal and others’, 1987(1) All India Land Law Reporter Page 556 (P&H) , observing as under:

“It could not be disputed that the suit for the grant of the mandatory injunction against the licensee whose lincence had been revoked, was maintainable, as held by this Court in Delhi Gate Service