Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 617
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
J.P.Singh, J.
Chain Singh -Appellant
Versus
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board & Ors. -Resopndent
CIMA No. 218/2006 & CMA No.255/2006
Decided On : 21-11-2012
Rohit Kohli, D. S. Chouhan , Anil Verma, Advocates for Appellant.
Ms. S. S. Lehar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Meharban Singh, Advocate for Respon#31;dents.
The appellant's forcible dispossession should be protected until his lawful eviction under due process of law, and ordered him to deposit Rs.20.00 Lac with the Trial Court until final disposal of the Suit.
Headnote:
Ad-interim Injunction - Property Dispute - Jammu and Kashmir Dharmarth Trust Act, 1986, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986 - The court discussed the appellant's claim of being a tenant in a shop and the Board's contention of him being a licensee. The court examined the legal provisions and interpretations related to the status of the appellant in the shop, the termination of the license, and the entitlement to protection against forcible dispossession. The court held that the appellant's forcible dispossession should be protected until his lawful eviction under due process of law, and ordered him to deposit Rs.20.00 Lac with the Trial Court until final disposal of the Suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought ad-interim injunction against the Board's dispossession from a shop. The Trial Court declined the appellant's Application based on his admission in a previous Writ Petition and the absence of an Agreement governing their relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's decision was not justified as the appellant's forcible dispossession should be protected until his lawful eviction under due process of law.
Issues: The main issue was the status of the appellant in the shop, whether as a tenant or a licensee, and the entitlement to protection against forcible dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's forcible dispossession should be protected until his lawful eviction under due process of law, and ordered him to deposit Rs.20.00 Lac with the Trial Court until final disposal of the Suit.
Final Decision: The Appeal succeeded, and the respondents were restrained from using force for appellant's eviction from the shop, subject to his depositing Rs.20.00 Lac with the Trial Court in four installments.
2. The Trial Court declined the appellant's Application finding that the mate#31;rial available on records, which included order passed by this Court in appellant's Writ Petition OWP No. 184/1994, in which he had admitted him to be the Licensee of the shop, would not indicate existence of prima facie case in his favour Of being either an existing Licensee, or a tenant.
3. It is not disputed that the appellant has been in continuous possession of the shop since 1983. According to the appellant, he was a tenant, whereas Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, "the Board", for short, treats him the Licensee of the Jammu and Kashmir Dharmarth Trust, which was earlier managing the affairs of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine and the properties attached thereto. The appellant would sell Tea, Sweets and Soft drinks etc., in the shop in accordance with the permission granted to him by the Jammu and Kashmir Dharmarth Trust which had put the shop along with other shops enroute Shrine to auction for use thereof by the successful allottees as Licensee(s) of the Trust. After takeover of the Shrine by the Board in the year 1986, the appellant remained in possession of the shop which, after its reconstruction by the Board was again handed over to him.
4. According to the information supplied by the learned counsel for the Board, the appellant continued paying Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per year to the Board from 1989 to 1995; but did not thereafter pay any amount because of the litigation between the parties. It is further conveyed by the learned counsel that the yearly License Fee for similar shops in the area was about Rs.5.00 Lac in 1995, Rs.10.00 Lac in 1997 and Rs.15.00 Lac in the year 2003.
5. From the material placed on records, it appears that before the filing of the Suit, the appellant was prosecuting his Second Writ Petition in this Court claiming to be the tenant in the shop. The Writ Petition was, however, dismissed finding that the Board was not amenable to Writ jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant was, however, left free to seek adjudication of his plea as projected in the Writ Petition by Civil Suit. The appellant accordingly filed Civil Suit along with an Application seeking interim injunction against his threatened forcible dispossession by the Board.
6. The Trial Court was of the view that bound by admission made in Writ Petition OWP No. 184/1994 that he was a Licensee in the Shop, the appellant was estopped from projecting him a tenant thereof. It was further of the view that period of initial license granted to the appellant having since expired and there being no Agreement between the parties governing their inter se relationship, the appellant's possession over the shop was that of a trespasser and he was disentitled to seek injunctive directions against his dispossession by the Board.
7. The appellant's case, on the other hand, is that the admission appearing in the High Court's Order was only regarding his License to sell eatables in the shop and was not regarding his possession as such therein. To support his plea, he refers to the contents of the Writ Petition to urge that the dispute being only regarding the License issued to him by the State Government to deal in certain eatables, there was no occasion for him to admit him to be the Licensee of the shop.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learn
