Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Harwant Singh, who is the maternal uncle of Harbans Singh Cheema, the sole defendant, filed a suit to the effect that he is the purchaser and, and thus, the owner of Kothi No. l30-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, described fully in the plaint and, by styling himself as owner, sought a decree for mandatory injunction under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 , directing the defendant to vacate the said premises and never to interfere in future with his legal possession thereafter. This suit was decreed by Shri Baldev Singh, P.C.S., Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana vide his judgment and decree dated 25.4.1978. Aggrieved, defendant Harbans Singh Cheema filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has since been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 4.6.1979. Still aggrieved, the defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that Harwant Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of Kothi No. 130-R, Model Town, Ludhiana and Harbans Singh Cheema should vacate the said kothi. The burden of plaint is that he had purchased the property of 500 square yards vide sale deed dated 13.5.1968, registered on 29.6.1968 from the previous owner Sohinder Singh son of Sohan Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and is the owner of the said premises. Shri Sohinder Singh, in turn, had purchased the entire unit No. 130 for an amount of Rs. 11,453/- from the Rehabilitation Department in an open auction on 23.4.1950, He was granted conveyance deed on 3.5.1950, with the condition that Rs. 900/- was to be paid as earnest money on the spot, whereas, the remaining amount of sale consideration was to be paid along with 3% interest in 30 equal half yearly installments. The title of Sohinder Singh purchaser was to be effected only on the payment of full installments. Concededly, Sohinder Singh obtained a clearance certificate on 26.4.1868 and also obtained permission from the Rehabilitation Department to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff after clearing all the installments. The title of Sohinder Singh purchaser was to be effected only on the payment of full installments. Concededly, Sohinder Singh obtained a clearance certificate on 26.4.1868 and also obtained permission from the Rehabilitation Department to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff after clearing all the installments. The plaintiff, being the real maternal uncle of the defendant, was persuaded by the defendant to enter into the bargain of purchase of Kothi No. 130-R. The plaintiff was then in military (Central Government) service outside Ludhiana and he relied upon the defendant in bringing about the transaction of sale in his favour. The amount of earnest money of Rs. 900/-had been paid by the plaintiff to Sohinder Singh through the defendant and subsequent installments had been paid by the plaintiff in Rehabilitation Department through the defendant in the name of Sohinder Singh, who, after the conveyance deed issued in his favour, had agreed to sell Kothi No. 130-R, Model Town, Ludhiana in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the possession of the said kothi to the plaintiff in 1950. The defendant, it was asserted, was using the said kothi since 8.9.1956 as a mere licensee under the plaintiff. Prior to that, the defendant was leasing out the said premises to defendant tenants on behalf of the plaintiffs and rendered accounts to the plaintiff of the rent realised from the tenants. The defendant, being the sisters son of the plaintiff, had been using the kothi as a mere licensee without payment of any licence fee. The plaintiff through a registered notice dated 2.1.1971 revoked the licence of the defendant and requested him to vacate kothi No. 130-R in his occupation within a week. The defendant did not respond to notice aforesaid, thus, constraining the plaintiff to file the suit, as mentioned above. 2. The matter herein was contested by the defendant-appellant, who raised number of preliminary objections in his written statement but at this stage, all that requires to be mentioned is that he also contested the suit on the ground that he could not be a licensee and further if the plaintiff himself was not owner and thus, could not create a licence of the property, subject matter of dispute. 3. The pleadings of the parties resulted into framing of the following 10 issues;- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner of house No. 130-R in dispute? OPP 2. 3. The pleadings of the parties resulted into framing of the following 10 issues;- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner of house No. 130-R in dispute? OPP 2. Whether defendant is in possession as a licensee under plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether defendant is owner of the suit house? OPD 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee & jurisdiction? OPP 5-A. Whether possession of the defendants is open and hostile to the knowledge of Sohinder Singh previous owner, as full owner since 1950 as alleged in para 8 of the written statement. If so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the defendant has made improvements in the property in dispute after entering into possession in 1950. If so of what value and is he entitled to recover from the plaintiff? OPD 8. Whether the suit is maintainable is present form for declaration and injunction? OPD 9. Whether defendant entered into exclusive possession of the house in part performance of the agreement of sale and paid all subsequent installments to the rehabilitation Department. If so to what effect? OPD 10. Relief. 4 In the resultant trial, as mentioned above the suit was decreed, which has since been confirmed by the appellate Court. 5. Mr. S.C. Kapoor, learned Sr. Advocate, who appears on behalf of the appellant has raised three contentions for consideration of this Court. The first contention raised by him in that in view of the facts, as mentioned above, plaintiff had no right to create a licence, when he himself was not the owner and further that Sohinder Singh also could not have created a licence being himself not a owner till such time his title was perfect by payment of all installments. He was not the owner and thus, could not create a licence. Mr. Kapoor also contends that the defendant had made lot of improvements in the premises in dispute and was, thus, at least entitled to the money spent by him on such improvements and for that reason an Issue No. 7 was framed by learned Appellate Court, but the same too had turned against him without giving any reasons whatsoever. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the context of the facts of this case, however, I find no merit in either of the contentions of learned Counsel, as noted above. Besides the fact that there are number of documents which have been referred to by the appellate Court in arriving at a definite conclusion, that the possession of the defendant was never permissible, it further transpires from the conveyance deed Ex.P2/a, which was issued in the name of Sohinder Singh, that besides becoming a full owner, after paying all installments, he could create lease of the property even prior to the entire sale consideration was paid. If, therefore, the owner of the property, who has title, could create lease even prior to the payment of the entire consideration, surely he could create licence as well. Once, it is held that So-hinder Singh could create lease, surely the one, who was to be in possession and that too in any agreement of sale, could also create a licence. A Single Bench of this Court in Municipal Committee, Ambala City V/s. Lal Chand 1969 Current Law Journal 589, has held that it is not only the owner who can grant a license but any person who can transfer his interest in the property, is also competent to grant the same. Insofar issue No.7 pertaining to the improvements is concerned, it is conceded position that said issue was not pressed before learned Appellate Court. No occasion at all, thus, arises to go into the question, which was not even raised before the first Appellate Authority. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed leaving, however, parties to bear their own costs.