PRADEEP KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. NATHDWARA TEMPLE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, though in-principal, agreed to permit the sub- tenancy in his favour pursuant to his application dated 09.03.2009 (Annex.1), however, demanded an exorbitant amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- as "HksaV jkf"k", which was clearly contrary to the order dated 25.06.2017, issued by the Temple Board, which permitted "HksaV jkf"k" to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only.

(2.) Inviting Court's attention towards the proceedings drawn by the Temple Board, he submitted that even the officers of the Temple Board themselves have accepted that due to inadvertence, the amount has been calculated, for adjacent two floors shop and not with respect to the shop in question. He submits that while the proceedings for determination of correct amount of "HksaV jkf"k" was pending, the respondents have determined the tenancy of the original tenant - performa respondent No. 3 and initiated proceeding for their eviction (respondent No. 3 and petitioner) before the Estate Officer.

(3.) After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount demanded by the Temple Board, i.e. Rs. 3,30,000/- under protest, subject of course to final adjudication by this Court.