- (1.) This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff, after her suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of double storeyed, LIG Flat No.600, in the Housing Board Colony, Sector-3, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar, on 01.11.2012 and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment and decree dated 21.05.2014.
(2.) The case set up by the appellant was that she had taken possession of the aforesaid flat from the respondent in the year 1993, on the condition that the remaining installments to be paid in respect of the flat, to the Urban Development Authority, i.e. the agency which had allotted the flat to the respondent, would be paid by the appellant. It was further stated in the plaint that she had remained in continuous possession thereafter and had been paying the installments also, to the extent of Rs.1 lac, but no receipts were given by the respondent to her, despite her repeated requests. She also spent Rs.1 lac on the renovation and repair of the flat. The defendant, it was averred, had assured her in the year 1993 itself that he would get the flat transferred in her name, but in violation of the oral contract between them, he got the conveyance deed from the Development Authority in his own name, after which he was threatening to dispossess her forcibly.
(3.) The respondent herein filed a written statement to the plaint and other than the preliminary objection of non-maintainability, he stated that he was the owner of the flat allotted to him by the Development Authority in the year 1989 and consequently, the conveyance deed had been duly executed and registered in his favour. It was further stated that the appellant was on visiting terms with him and had been permitted to use the premises just as a licencee and subsequently she had agreed to stop the usage. In the month of July 2010, he had requested her to vacate the flat but instead she had filed the suit in August 2010 and continued to be in unauthorized and illegal possession thereafter. The respondent also filed a counter claim for possession of the flat.;