SANTOSH Vs. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.V. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Y.E. Tak, Advocate, for the petitioners, as well as Mr. U.K. Jalali, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohit Kapoor, for the respondents, in extenso.

(2.) THIS batch of Revision Petitioners, arising out of the same judgment and order dated 27.2.2003 formulated by learned Additional District Judge, Reasi, involving identical questions, are being disposed of by a common order/judgment. By the aforesaid judgment, learned Additional District Judge, Reasi dismissed the appeals of petitioners preferred against the order dated 30 -12 -2002 propounded by Sub -Judge, Katra in declining the plaintiffs applications for grant of temporary injunction in holding that there exists no prima facie case in their favour and vacated the ad -interim orders passed, in consequence thereof.

(3.) IN controverting the contention of the plaintiffs/petitioners, the stand taken by the respondents/defendants in their detailed written statement is that the suit shops were allotted by the Dharmarth Trust to the plaintiffs/petitioners on licence basis for the year 196, as is clearly borne out for the year 1997 -98 and the year 1996, as is clearly borne out form the notice issued by Dharmarth Trust. This fact is further stated to have been affirmed in the resolution of the Dharmarth Trust's Council, as per Annexure D -3 to the written Statement. However, with the information of the Shrine Board on the passing of the Governor's Act, 1986 and subsequently replaced by Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The Plaintiffs/Petitioners became licensees of the respondents. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs/petitioners voluntarily surrendered the possession of the shops in their occupation as licensees and alternative shops were provided to them on license basis for a period of two years, for which licence deeds dated 10 -2 -1994 to this effect also came to be executed. The plaintiffs/petitioners were allowed to use the shops as licensees on the payment of licence fee for a period of two years. It is also asserted by the defendants/respondents that the plaintiffs/petitioners being Board's Licensees having been allotted the said shops in the licensed premises were required to surrender the possession on the expiry of licence period. It was also contended by the respondents/defendants that under Section 20(3) of the Act, the tenancy of those persons is protected in respect of the suit shops, who were the tenants of the Dharmarth Trust. It, However, does not protect the licensees into tenants. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs/petitioners are mere licensees and the premises were permitted to be used by them on the payment of licence fee for a period of two years and after the expiry of the licence period, the plaintiffs/petitioners had no right to stay in the said premises and are liable to be evicted.