GAYA PARSHAD OIKSHIT v. DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

. The Judgment of the court was delivered bv • ~ ..

B. . BHAGWATl: ACTING CJ. We. Jiave'h~ard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and after hearing hi~ and persuing the judgment ·of the .High Court, we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the' view t.aken by the. High Court that mere termin~tion of the licence' of a licencce does not enable the licencee to claim ad~erse . possession, .unless ·and until he sets up a title hostile io that of the ·C · · licencor after termination ·of his licence,' It is not. merely un·authorised . ·~ possession 011 termination of his licence that enables ihe licencee to · ·claitn title ):iy adver;e 'possession but there musi be some overt a~t ori the pat't of ihc licencee to sho~ that he ·is claiming adverse title: Jt is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose ·of . recovering possession of the premises from the licencee after termina- n ting his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licencee to claim · title by ~dverse jlossession. °There must be some overt act on the part of the licence<1; indicating assertion of.hostiie title. Mere con- . tin1iance. of uriauthorised possession even for a period of more than . .12 years is n.ot enough: .Here in the present case there is nothing to show that at a·ny time after termination of his licence by Dr: Rama E Shanker or by tl;e first repo~dent' the appellant asserted hostile title in hims~lf. The High \ourt was, therefore, rigl1t in t,aking.the view that t!J..e ·.,ppellanf had not established any title by adverse. possession and iii that view of the matter," the suit of the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises ffom the appellant was not barred under article 65 which is the only article of the LimitationAet, f 1963 applicable ·in the present .case. We accordingly confirm the judg111ent ofthe ]i:igh Co!Jrl and dismiss !lie appeal. ·

·Mr. Markandeya,. learned. counsel appearing on behalf 6f the . appellant, has urged that the appellant has be~n in possession of the ·premises which consist ofr9oms Nos. I, 4 and 5 shown in fhe Amin's G map marked l6/5C since his birth and it would cause considerable hardship 10 him if he wereto be ev.icted from these room.s immediately and he.has, therefore; requested'that sufficient time may be· granted fo· the appellant to vacate these rooms. He has also stated that in the meanwhile the appellant is prepared to give up. possession of room H No. i but he may .be allowed to continue in possession of room Nos. 4. · & 5 for some reasonable period. This is a reasonable request on

' •

G.P . DIKSHIT v. N!RMA~ CHANDER (Bhagwati, A cling, CJ.) 289 . . behalf of the appella1it. Jn view of the fact that the appellant ha& A been in possession of rooms Nos. I, 4 a~d. 5 for a very loi1g perird I. j. and he has·:, .son who is studying in· school, we a.re' incilned fo grant . time to the appellant to hand. over possession of. room Nos. 4 and 5, provided he gives up· possession of room No. 1 ·on or before 28th February, 1984. If the appellaiif hands over ·vacant and peacefu) possession of room No.· f and any other portio!ii of the house which B may be it1 his" own· occupation apart from room Nos: 4 and 5 on or. before 28th.February, 1984 and he.and his. son file an' affidavit in this Court on or before t.hesame date·stating-that they are in possession and occupation of rooms Nos, 4 and 5 and undertaking that they· . will not induct anyone else in possession or cccupatio'n of these two rooms and will hand over vac.ant and peqaceful possession of these C ·' ·two rooms to the !st respondent on or before 30th June, 1987, 'the decree for possession against the appellant in respect of rooms Nos.A '"and 5 will not be executed untii 30th 5-une,. 1987.· If vacant and . peacefu(possession of room No, i is not handed over by the appellant to the 1st respondent on or before 28th February, 19 84 or if the appel- lant and his son fail to file an affidavit in the aforeswd terms on or D . before that date, the .qecree for possessi.on will be~ome executable forthwith. . • • · . There will be no order' .as to costs throughout. ' . '

N.V.K. Appeal <lismissed.

. .. - '· . . . I

.•

. , •

. '

"

' .