Plaintiffs instituted suit seeking decree of mandatory injunction for removing defendent from suit property owned by plaintiffs. They contended that they allowed defendant to reside in said suit property on gratuitous basis. Defendant submitted that suit property had been purchased from funds of joint family business belonging to their late father and that property was a benami property and that, she had a right in same. Except for a bald plea in written statement that suit property had been purchased from funds siphoned off from family business, there was no other plea raised in written statement to explain what right defendant had to reside in suit property and thus, defence was vague, evasive and lacked material particulars. Since suit property was bought by a registered conveyance deed and there was no challenge to said registered deed conveying title to plaintiffs, vague unsubstantiated plea of defendant claiming purchase of property from siphoning off of family business could not be allowed to be sustained. Once a licensee would always be a licensee. The license given in favour of the defendant stands terminated. The defendant would clearly be liable to be evicted.