ADMINISTRATOR, SRI. JAGANNATH TEMPLE Vs. GOPINATH PUJAPANDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point for decision in this appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'Code') centres round the question whether Gopinath Pujapanda, (described hereinafter as the 'plaintiff') was a tenant or licensee under Sri Jagannath Temple Committee, acting through its Administrator, and the Administrator (described hereinafter as the 'defendants') I do not consider it necessary to deal with other points raised, because fate of the appeal is largely dependent on the aforesaid primal issue.

(2.) Background facts, undisputed on almost all aspects, except the interpretation of a document, are in a nutshell as follows :

(3.) Learned Munsif, Puri held that plaintiff was not a monthly tenant and was a licensee, was liable for eviction. Accordingly, suit was dismissed. In appeal learned Additional Subordinate Judge-cum-A O.J.M., Puri held that plaintiff was a statutory tenant and cannot be evicted without recourse to procedure laid down in the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (in short, the 'Rent Act'), and the defendants were not entitled to evict the plaintiff from the shop.