PREM NATH Vs. MATA VAISHNU DEVI SHRINE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the Letters Patent Appeals are by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. These are being disposed of by common judgment as the same involve common questions of law and facts. For facility of ref- erence, facts are taken from appeal titled Prem Nath v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (LPA (C) No. 8/2002).

(2.) In the suit plaintiff alleged that he is a tenant of shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Bagh and a store room No. 14, appurtenant thereto located in Dhar Bhawan Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi, Trikuta Hills, Katra. He stated that defendants have no right to evict him forcibnly from the demised premises otherwise than in due course of law. He thus sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting him from the demised premises, Otherwise than in due course of law. Along with the suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, supported by an affidavit for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff. Upon notice of the suit and the application, the defendant contested the application for interim injunction and submitted that the plaintiff is a licensee and License Deed to this effect was executed between the parties on 25-5-1995 for a period of two years. It was stated that on expiry of the licence period by efflux of time, the plaintiff has no right to stay in the demised premises.

(3.) The trial Court considering the material available on the record declined to grant interlocutory injunction as the plaintiff had not succeeded to establish a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief in his favour. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Civil Ist Misc. Appeal in this Court. Learned single Judge vide the Judgment impugned on re-appreciation of the material on record affirmed the findings of the trial Court and held the plaintiff to be the licensee of the premises for the limited period. It has also been held that after the expiry of the licence by efflux of time, the plaintiff has no right to. remain in the premises or to ask for interim relief through judicial apparatus. Since the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to support the right, which was asserted on the strength of the material placed on the record, the learned single Judge refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. On dismissal of the appeal by the learned single Judge, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the plaintiff.