LAWS(J&K)-2023-9-40

MADAN LAL Vs. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD

Decided On September 20, 2023
MADAN LAL Appellant
V/S
MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By concurrent judgments, the two Courts below i.e. the court of Sub Judge Katra (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial court") and the court of District Judge, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1st appellate court"), have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, whereby he had sought declaration to the effect that he is the tenant of Thara (space) measuring 72.59 sq.ft. located at Pharati Kho, a place enroute from Ban Ganga to Holy Shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the aforesaid Thara, otherwise than in due course of law.

(2.) It appears that the appellant had filed a suit of the nature indicated above before the trial court in which he had claimed that he is tenant of the suit space and that initially he was tenant of Dharmarth Trust. It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he was conducting the business of sale and manufacture from the demised space and when in the year, 1986, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act was enacted, the tenants including the plaintiff under the Dharmarth Trust became the tenants of the Shrine Board. According to the plaintiff, he continued to pay rent to the defendant-Board on half yearly basis. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant-Board is now threatening him to evict him from the suit space without adopting due course of law.

(3.) Respondent-Board filed its written statement and claimed that the plaintiff was a licensee under Dharmarth Trust for a period of six months for selling Barf Malai from Darshani Darwaza to Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi Ji. The defendant denied the status of the plaintiff/appellant as a tenant and asserted that the space was allotted to the plaintiff on license for a fixed term. It has been claimed that the license of the plaintiff has been revoked and he is an unauthorized trespasser.