The High Court of Delhi has dismissed appeals filed by the legal representatives of a deceased relative, upholding a Trial Court decree granting possession of a property in Vijay Nagar to the registered owner. The Court ruled that a mere license to reside in a property, even if granted to a family member, does not create an interest in the property and is revocable by the owner.
The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the appeals filed by the legal representatives of Kalyan Dass (Appellant) against Parveen Chawla (Respondent). The Court affirmed the findings of the District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, which had declared Parveen Chawla the owner of the property bearing No. B-25A, Vijay Nagar, Delhi, and directed the Appellants to hand over possession. The Court held that the Appellant failed to prove the property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) asset and that his occupation was merely that of a licensee.
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to the partition of India in 1947 when the family of Ladha Ram (Respondent’s father) and his younger brother Kalyan Dass (Appellant) migrated to India. The family initially lived in tents before Ladha Ram was allotted the suit property by the Government of India in 1950 on a rental basis.
In 1957, Ladha Ram applied to purchase the property from the Ministry of Rehabilitation. A Perpetual Lease Deed was registered in his name on July 8, 1971. Ladha Ram passed away in 1977, and his wife died in 1996. Subsequently, the other legal heirs of Ladha Ram relinquished their shares in favor of the Respondent, Parveen Chawla. A Conveyance Deed was executed in favor of the Respondent on August 25, 1999, converting the property to freehold.
The Appellant, Kalyan Dass, occupied a front portion of the property measuring 15′ x 22′. In 1996, the Respondent executed an Agreement and a Will, allowing his uncle (the Appellant) to reside in that portion during his lifetime. However, following disputes, the Respondent cancelled the Will in 2009 and revoked the license in 2010, subsequently filing a suit for possession and mesne profits.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions: The Appellant argued that the property was allotted to the joint family in lieu of ancestral property left in Pakistan and thus constituted an HUF property in which he had a share. He contended that he had been in possession since 1960 and that the Agreement and Will dated September 24, 1996, were in recognition of a family settlement/partition. It was further argued that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed years after the Appellant’s possession began.
Respondent’s Contentions: The Respondent asserted absolute ownership based on the Perpetual Lease Deed and the subsequent Conveyance Deed. He argued that the Appellant was merely a licensee permitted to reside in the premises out of love and affection. The Respondent highlighted that the Appellant had admitted the execution of the 1996 Agreement, which explicitly acknowledged the Respondent as the owner.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Ownership and HUF Claim: The Court rejected the Appellant’s claim that the property was joint family property. Justice Pushkarna observed that the burden to prove the existence of an HUF lies on the person asserting it. The Court noted that the initial allotment in 1950 was on a rental basis and did not confer proprietary rights. Ownership was established only when Ladha Ram purchased the property.
The Court observed:
“Before conferment of the proprietary right qua the suit property upon father of the respondent, Shri Ladha Ram, the suit property vested in the Government… Mere issuance of allotment letter did not create any proprietary right in the suit property.”
On the Nature of Possession (License vs. Interest): The Court analyzed the Agreement dated September 24, 1996, noting that it specifically referred to the Respondent as the “owner/lessee” and the Appellant as the party in possession of a portion. The Court held that the agreement created a revocable license, not an interest in the property.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2011), the Court reiterated that a license does not create an estate or interest in the property.
The Court observed:
“The License Agreement dated 24th September, 1996 was not an irrevocable license, as the intention of the parties is clearly evident from the terms of the Agreement, and the same did not create any interest in favour of the appellant in the property.”
On Admission of Title: The Court laid significant emphasis on the fact that the Appellant had admitted the execution of the 1996 Agreement and Will. Since a Will can only be executed by an owner, the Appellant’s reliance on these documents amounted to an admission of the Respondent’s title.
“It is res integra that a will would be executed only by owner of a property and having admitted the said will, the deceased appellant as well as his son, have clearly recognized and admitted to the ownership of the respondent in the suit property.”
On Limitation: The Court dismissed the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. It held that the cause of action arose in 2009 when the Will was cancelled and in 2010 when the license was formally revoked via legal notice.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeals (RFA 474/2013 & RFA 475/2013) and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment dated May 16, 2013.
- Possession: The Appellant’s legal heirs were directed to “forthwith handover the portion of the suit property occupied by him, to the respondent.”
- Damages/Mesne Profits: The Court upheld the decree of damages at Rs. 5,000/- per month along with interest @ 12% p.a. from June 1, 2010, till the delivery of possession. The amount already deposited by the Appellant in the Court was ordered to be released to the Respondent.
- Enhanced Damages: The Court declined the Respondent’s request for enhanced mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000/-, citing a lack of evidence regarding prevailing market rent.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kalyan Dass Through LR’s v. Praveen Chawla
- Case Numbers: RFA 474/2013 & RFA 475/2013
- Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna
