Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.K. Rastogi the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Komal Mehrotra for the respondents.
(2.) This second appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2006 passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the respondent-appellants' appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been reversed by granting a decree of possession in plaintiff's favour.
(3.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for eviction and decree of possession of the disputed premises and recovery of damages also from the said defendants. It is stated by the plaintiff that she purchased the disputed premises for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- form its owner. She also got the mortgage redeemed by the previous owner by making payment of Rs. 7,995/- and the interest accrued thereon to the mortgagee Radhey Shyam in the year 1979. The defendant-appellant was permitted by her to occupy a portion of this house as a licensee on his assurance that he would vacate it in due course of time when he gets another accommodation. The defendant happens to be her son. The defendant later on when requested to vacate the house in question, he failed to do so in spite of notice, hence the suit.;