The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the plaintiff's status as a licensee and the application of Section 104(2) CPC in determining the maintainability of the appeal.

1. All the Letters Patent Appeals are by the un-successful plaintiffs. These are being disposed of by common judgment as the same involve common questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are taken from appeal titled Prern Nath Vs Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (LPA (C) No. 8/2002).

2. In the suit plaintiff alleged that he is a tenant of Shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Bagh and a Store Room No. 14, appurtenant thereto located in Dhar Bhawan Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi, Trikuta Hills, Katra. He Stated that defendants have no right to evict him forcibly from the demised premises other-wise than in due course of law. He, thus sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting him from the demised premises otherwise than in due course of law. Alongwith the suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, supported by an affidavit for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff. Upon notice of the suit and the application, the defendant contested the application for Interim injunction and submitted that the plaintiff is a licensee and License Deed to this effect was executed between the parties on 25-5-1995 for a period of two years. It was stated that on expiry of the licence period by efflux of time, the plaintiff has no right to stay in the demised premises.

3. The trial Court considering the material available on the record declined to grant interlocutory injunction as the plaintiff had not succeed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief in his favour. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Civil Ist Misc. Appeal in this Court. Learned Single Judge vide the judgement impugned on re-appreciation of the material on record affirmed the findings of the trial Court and held the plaintiff to be the licensee of the premises for the limited period. It has also been held that after the expiry of the licence by efflux of time, the plaintiff has no right to remain in the premises or to ask for interim relief through judicial apparatus. Since the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to support the right, which was asserted on the strength of the material placed on the record, the learned Single Judge refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. On dismissal of the appeal by the learned Single Judge, the Present L.P.A. has been filed by the plaintiff.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff have contended that the trial court and also the learned Single Judge have not correctly appreciated the material on record to come to a finding that the plaintiff is licensee. It is contended that the plaintiff in fact is a tenant and cannot be evicted, except in accordance with law, applicable to the premises in dispute. Learned Counsel further stated that even if it is held that the plaintiff is a licensee then also the plaintiff cannot be evicted without adopting the due course of law. Reference in this regard has been made to a case reported as AIR 1989 SC 2097, whereby it has been held that a person in settled possession of the property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse of law.

5. In answer to these submissions, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant not only raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the Letters patent Appeal but also contended that the plaintiff was granted a licence for a period of two years and few days before the expiry of the licence, the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen came to be filed and the plaintiff is continuing in possession on the strength of the interim injunction granted by the trial court and the learned Single Judge. It is contended that on the expiry of the licence period, the plaintiff has no right to remain in the demised premises