R.S.A. No. 168 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 168 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.1.2011 Madhu Bala ......Appellant Versus Luxmi Devi .......Respondent ****** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Chirangi Lal, Advocate for Mr. Paramjit Jakhar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Laxmi Devi filed a suit for mandatory injunction alleging that she was the owner of the house in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased the house in dispute vide sale deeds dated 9.6.1969. The defendant was her daughter and had strained relations with her husband. The defendant was allowed to live in the house in dispute as a licensee by the plaintiff on sympathetic grounds. The said licence was terminated by the plaintiff and a registered notice dated 9.10.2006 was sent to the defendant. However, the defendant had failed to hand over the vacant possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. Hence, suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in her written statement averred that due to loss in R.S.A. No. 168 of 2011 (O&M) 2 business, her husband had lost his mental balance. Her parents had brought her alongwith her children to Hisar in the year 1988. Husband of the defendant was later got admitted in mental hospital in Punjab. Plaintiff and her son Sanjay took a loan of ` 1,45,000/- from the defendant in the year 2000. Since the defendant was not having any accommodation, plaintiff gave the house in dispute to the defendant for residential purposes. Defendant had spent ` 25,000/- on the repair of the house. Plaintiff, however, did not repay the loan taken by her from the defendant and started levelling false allegations against the defendant. On 13.7.2005, ` 1,42,000/- was handed over to the defendant in a Panchayat but plaintiff did not pay any interest on the loan amount. The interest liable to be paid by the plaintiff was to the tune of ` 1,27,800/- and she was also liable to pay ` 25,000/- to the defendant which had been spent by the defendant on repair of the house. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- per month from the date of institution of this suit till the date of vacate possession of house in question ? OPP 3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed true and material facts from the court, if so to what effect ? OPD 6. Relief.” R.S.A. No. 168 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009, the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to vacate the house in question within one month and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and plaintiff preferred cross-objection. The appeal, filed by the defendant, was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2010. The decree was modified to the extent that the defendant shall be liable to pay amount to the tune of ` 300/- per month for use and occupation of the house in dispute. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the house in dispute is owned by the plaintiff and the same was given to the defendant for residential purposes. Defendant, however, failed to establish that she had given a loan of ` 1,42,000/- to the plaintiff or her son. Moreover, in the written statement, it was admitted by the defendant that the said loan had been repaid by the plaintiff in a Panchayat. The defendant had not taken the plea that the house in dispute had been given to her as a security for the loan amount. Since the house had been given to the defendant on compassionate ground, the defendant was liable to vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued registered notice to the defendant qua termination of the licence. Once the licence was terminated, the defendant was liable to hand over the R.S.A. No. 168 of 2011 (O&M) 4 vacant possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant was also liable to pay mesne profit for use and occupation of the house in dispute. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2011 Anand