Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant, claiming therein rendition of a decree for vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs' suit stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it dis-concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiffs/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a house (No.199/11) situated in Katcha Tank Mohalla of Nahan town was jointly owned by the plaintiffs and that the defendant was allowed to resident in a portion thereof depicted by letter 'ABCDEFGHIJKL' in the site plan as a licensee in September, 1993. As to the license, which was initially created for a period of 11 months only, an agreement was executed by the licensee on September 25, 1993. The suit premises in respect of which license was created consisted of two rooms, a bath, a kitchen and a common toilet and the charges for use and occupation were agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. After expiry of the stipulated period the defendant, at her request was allowed to continue as a licensee. However, the use and occupation charges were enhanced to Rs.470/- per month w.e.f. January, 2000. On being married, she shifted to Delhi. Before leaving for Delhi She, instead of handing over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs, delivered possession to her parents. Terming her parents as trespassers, the plaintiffs averred that the defendant had also failed to pay the outstanding use and occupation charges amounting to Rs.5,000/- and that the licence created in her favour stood terminated by efflux of time as well as through a registered A.D. notice dated June 18, 2000. They, therefore, instituted the aforementioned suit for vacant possession of the suit premises and recovery of Rs.5,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides they prayed for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.470/- per month.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. Execution of a writing of September, 1993 inter se the defendant with the plaintiff was admitted. It is submitted that the defendant was a student at the relevant time and did not have any independent source of income and was, therefore, completely dependent on her parents and that it was in fact her father Braham Dutt, who had taken from the plaintiffs a three roomed set on a monthly rental of Rs.600/-. About two months later, he shifted to a smaller apartment of the same house. The apartment to which he shifted was a two roomed set in respect of which the monthly rentals were Rs.400/-. Claiming to have been married in 1996, the defendant averred that shehad been living with her husband in Delhi, ever since, and that possession of her parents was as tenants and not as licensees. Her father, according to her, fell in arrears of rent from June 2000, since his money order was refused by the plaintiffs.;