Back
2006 Supreme(J&K) 290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J.
Subash Chander - Appellant
Versus
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Katra - Respondent
CIMA No. 279/2006 a/w CMP No. 370/2006 And Caveat No. 558/2006
Decided On : 01 December, 2006
Advocate For Appellant: L.K. Sharma
Advocate For Respondent: U.K. Jalali
Advocate For Respondent: Rohit Kohli
Advocate For Respondent: Anil Khajuria
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over possession, the court must consider the existence of a prima facie case, the need for due process in determining possession, and the maintenance of status quo until the final disposal of the case.
Headnote:
Tenant - Dispute over possession of shop - Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction - Jammu and Kashmir Suit Valuation Act, 1977 - Sections 452 & 427 RPC - Prima facie case for injunction - Maintenance of status quo
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant of a shop near Mata Vaishno Devi, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent, alleging interference in his peaceful possession and conduct of business. The trial court dismissed the application for interim relief and vacated the order of status quo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not properly exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the application for interim relief. It directed the parties to maintain status quo and expedite the disposal of the main suit.
Issues: The issues included the status of the appellant as the tenant of the shop, the nature of his possession, and whether the respondent intended to evict the appellant without due course of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court should have maintained status quo as the issues required evidence and determination. It emphasized that a prima facie case does not require the party to prove the case to the hilt, but to show a fair question of law and fact. It also stressed the need for due process in determining the nature of possession.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal, directed the parties to maintain status quo, and expedite the disposal of the main suit.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent owns a shop near Pacci Chabeel Katra enroute to Mata Vaishno Devi. The appellant alleges that the shop was let out to him at a monthly rent of Rs.25,820.50 during the year 1977-78 by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent namely Dharmarth Trust, Jammu. He alleges that the Dharmarth Trust permitted him to Extend and construct the suit shop by enhancing the annual rent to Rs. 29,500/- w.e.f. 15.09.1979. His grievance is that though he continues to run the shop since the year 1978, the respondent is bent upon him to eject him from the suit shop. He alleges that he continued to pay the rent to the Dharmarth Trust upto 1986 and onwards to the respondent upto 1996 at the agreed rate of Rs. 29,500/- per year, but thereafter he could not pay the rent because he was out of possession of the shop and was not receiving anything from Narayan Dutt, the occupant of the shop because of some litigation. When he got the possession of the shop from Narayan Dutt, he applied to the respondent to settle the installments for payment of arrears of rent. Total rent from 1996 to September, 2005 was calculated as Rs. 2,88,802/-, for which four installments were fixed. The appellant issued four cheques to the respondent bearing Nos. 362217, 362218, 362219 and 362220 dated 01.12.2002, 01.03.2003, 01.06.2003 and 01.09.2003 respectively, each for rupees 72,200.50/-. The respondent, according to the appellant, encashed two cheques dated 01.12.2002 & 01.03.2003, but the other two cheques dated 01.06.2003 & 01.09.2003 were not encashed.
3. The appellant further alleges that on 22.06.2003, some employees of the respondent came on the suit shop with labourer and started throwing out the goods lying in the shop, which action was resisted by the people and the other neighbourers of the appellant. A F.I.R. was lodged in this behalf with Police Station, Katra, on 23.06.2003 against the officials of the respondent under Sections 452 & 427 RPC for forcibly trespassing into the shop of the appellant and causing damage in the shop. Appellant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Reasi, on 18.07.2003, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the appellant from the suit shop forcibly without adopting due course of law. An interim injunction to maintain status quo with respect to suit shop was issued in his favour. The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application for interim relief and vacated the order of status quo vide order dated 23.09.2006.
4. The appellant is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application for interim relief by the Trial Court and vacation of order of status-quo on various grounds, inter alia, that the Trial Court has not appreciated the controversy arising in the case and has dismissed the application in the most perfunctory manner.
5. Heard. I have considered the matter and have gone through the record summoned from the Trial Court.
6. The appellant, as observed above, has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, from interfering, evicting or otherwise interfering in the peaceful possession and conduct of business of the appellant over the shop situated at Puran Daroor, near Pacci Chabeel Katra, known as Milk Bar. The appellant has alleged in the suit that he was the tenant of the shop and was paying rent as fixed by the Dharmarth Trust, to the respondent.
7. The suit has been resisted by the respondent, who has denied the status of the appellant as tenant of the property. It has, however, been admitted by the respondent that the appellant was in possession of the shop as he was a licensee of the s
