RSA No.4479 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4479 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: May 24, 2011. Subash Kumar. .. Appellant VERSUS Harish Kumar. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.P.S.Dhammi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Gagan Oberoi, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellant to vacate House No.359, Phase VI, Mohali, has been decreed by the Courts below, holding that the defendant-appellant had been occupying portion of the . . . 1 RSA No.4479 of 2010 (O&M) house as licencee. The plea raised by the defendant-appellant that he had invested in the construction of the house after selling his plot No.400, Phase VI, Mohali, has been disbelieved as the appellant had failed to substantiate the said plea by producing any cogent evidence. Besides this, the suit filed by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiff-respondent for injunction has already been dismissed and appeal against the dismissal of the suit for injunction also stands dismissed on 15.10.2005. A copy of the judgment and decree is part of the record as EX.PZ and EX.PZ/1, respectively. The Courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the licence, as claimed by the plaintiff, stood revoked and that the defendant has got no right to remain in possession. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the dispute is amongst the real brothers and no written notice has been given to the defendant-appellant terminating the licence. I have considered the contention of the counsel for the appellant but do not find any force in the same as a finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below on the basis of the previous litigation and on appreciation of evidence in the present case that the licence of the defendant-appellant stands already revoked. It is also argued by the counsel for the appellant that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. I have considered the said contention in the light of . . . 2 RSA No.4479 of 2010 (O&M) judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Joseph Severance and others Vs. Benny Mathew and others, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 559, that a suit for eviction of licencee is maintainable to get the premises vacated. Similar is the ratio in case Surjit Kaur Vs. Balwinder Kaur, 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 118 (P & H), in which it has been held that a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against the licencee. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact. The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted six months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the portion of House No.359, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali, to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant will furnish an undertaking to this effect before the executing Court to hand over the vacant possession after a period of six months' to get the benefit of time granted by this Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 24, 2011. rka . . . 3