BEANT SINGH Vs. CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge Jammu who reversed the decision of the Munsiff, Jammu granting an injunction in favour of the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant instituted a suit in the Munsiffs court asking for a permanent injunction to restrain the Jammu Cantonment Board from evicting him from a land in which he claimed a lease hold interest. The respondent -defendant contended that the transaction was only a license and not a lease and that the license having terminated, the licensee is not entitled to any injunction against the licensor. The trial court found that the plaintiff was only a licensee; it, however, granted a temporary injunction in his favour to inure till the defendant -licensor obtained a decree in ejectment from a competent court. On appeal by the Cantonment Board, the Addl. District Judge dismissed the suit not on the ground that the true nature of the transaction between the parties did not admit of the relief asked for but on the main ground that the suit ought to have been instituted against the Government of India in view of Rule 43 (iii) of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal.

(3.) THE first contention urged on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant is that rule 43(iii) of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules has no application to the case. That rule is as under: -