VIRENDER SALGOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under sec. 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir (now 227 of the Constitution of India) for quashing the order dtd. 15/3/2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court) whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 20/1/2016 passed by the Sub Judge, Udhampur dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction in suit titled, "G. L. Mittal vs. Union of India", has been dismissed, thereby upholding the order dtd. 20/1/2016.

(2.) The petitioners have impugned the order dtd. 15/3/2016 on the grounds that learned appellate court has exercised the jurisdiction in an illegal manner by ignoring vital documentary evidence, that clearly demonstrated that there was relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties. Further even if it is assumed that there was relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties, even then the license was irrevocable in nature.

(3.) The respondents have filed the objections, wherein besides raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the petition, have stated that the petitioners were the licensees with regard to few shops situated in different areas of 71 Sub-Area, Northern Command Headquarter at Udhampur and were granted licences for a period of 11 months only. The said licence deeds came to be executed as per the standard operating procedure prescribed by the Government of India which authorises all the officers and the units to execute only the licence deed and prescribe various acts and deeds to be done by the licencees which includes the time within which the shops can be opened, the type of business, licence fee and various other acts including the handing over of the premises after the expiry of the licence period. All these conditions make it clear that the respondents could give the shops to the petitioners only on licence basis and there could not be any other meaning, express or hidden, which could be inferred from the said deeds and the acts of the parties. The license deeds, as per sec. 52 and 54 of the Easements Act make it clear that the deeds were license deeds, which were executed with full knowledge and consent of the petitioners and they were bound to hand over the vacant possession of the shop after the expiry of the licence period and in the absence of any extension. After the expiry of the licence period, the respondents started process for the execution of fresh license deeds and the petitioners were also eligible for participation in tender process but instead of doing so, the petitioners filed the suit before the trial court. It is also submitted that there is no error of fact or law that necessitates the exercise of power under sec. 104 of then Constitution of J&K, as the judgements of the trial court as well as appellate court are sound judgements.