1. Heard Mr. S.S. Lehar, learned Senior Advocate as well as B.S. Slathia, learned Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Parmodh Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

2. This batch of appeals, arising out of a common judgment dated: 04-12-2001 pronounced by learned Additional District Judge, Reasi, involving identical question, are being disposed of by a common order. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Additional District Judge, Reasi dismissed the plaintiffs applications for grant of temporary injunction.

3. Simultaneously, with the launching of a suit for declaration in claiming to be tenant of Shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Bhagh and a Store Room No. 14 appurtenant thereto located in Dhar Bhawan Mata Vaishno Ji, Trikuta Hills, Katra leased out in lieu of pre-existing Shop No. 43 with a Store attached thereto, forcibly demolished by the defendant/respondent, with a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting the plaintiff/appellant, from the demised premises otherwise than in due course of law. Application supported by an affidavit also came to be initiated for grant of ¢temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff under provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 and Section 151 of the CPC. On the filing of the disclaimer by the defendant/respondent, hearing the rival contentions of the parties and considering the material available on record, the Trial Court declined to grant inter locutory injunction in holding that the plaintiff has not succeeded to establish a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief in his favour vide judgment dated: 04-12-2001. Aggrievedby the impugned order drawn by the Additional District Judge. Reasi, plaintiff/appellant, Prem Nath, canvassed its correctness in this appeal.

4.Setting in facts of the case, in resuming plaintiff/appellant claimed to be tenant of Dhannarth Trust on an annual rent of Rs. 5,280/- prior to the coming up of Shri Mata VaishnoDevi Shrine Act, 1986 (Governors Act), subsequently replaced by 1988 Act and under Section 20 (3) of the said Act, he became tenant of Shrine Board. To support his contention, plaintiff/appellant has placed reliance on a certificate dated: 10-01-1994 issued by Secretary Dhannarth and Circular issued by Chief Executive Officer. Shrine Board dated: 27-02-1988 demanding a rent from all the tenants of Shrine Board. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was evicted from original Shop No. 43 in the intervening night of 9th/10th September, 1994 by the officers of the Shrine Board with the help of the police forcibly. After being evicted, the plaintiff was summoned by the Additional Chief Executive Officer of the Shrine Board and offered a shop at an enhanced yearly rent of Rs. 62,500/-. It is further averred in the plaint that the possession of Shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Darbar together with Store No. 14 was delivered to the plaintiff as an alternative shop in lieu of the premises under its tenancy which has been demolished forcibly by the defendant/respondent. That the plaintiff is running his business peacefully in the tenanted premises, but the defendant/respondent threatened to forcibly evict the plaintiff. Plaintiff-appellant also asserted the existence of jurality of relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties.

5. The specific stand of the defendant/respondent, Shrine Board, in its demurrer is that the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the possession of Shop No. 3 on 10th September. 1994, of which he happened to be licensee of the Dharmarth Trust and thereafter alternative shop was provided to him and allowed user of Shop No. 3 on license basis for a space of two years. This new shop was allotted to plaintiff/appellant after about nine months on 29-05-1995. A license deed to this effect was executed between the parties on 29-05-1995. A tender notice has also been placed on record. On the basis of tender notice and circular issued by Dharmarth Trust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document