The judgment emphasizes the distinction between lease and license, the interpretation of 'due process of law' in the context of eviction of a licensee, and the importance of a judicial determination of rights in cases of possession disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. By concurrent judgments, the two Courts below i.e. the court of Sub Judge Katra (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”) and the court of District Judge, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1st appellate court”), have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, whereby he had sought declaration to the effect that he is the tenant of Thara (space) measuring 72.59 sq.ft. located at Pharati Kho, a place enroute from Ban Ganga to Holy Shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the aforesaid Thara, otherwise than in due course of law.

2. It appears that the appellant had filed a suit of the nature indicated above before the trial court in which he had claimed that he is tenant of the suit space and that initially he was tenant of Dharmarth Trust. It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he was conducting the business of sale and manufacture from the demised space and when in the year, 1986, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act was enacted, the tenants including the plaintiff under the Dharmarth Trust became the tenants of the Shrine Board. According to the plaintiff, he continued to pay rent to the defendant-Board on half yearly basis. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant-Board is now threatening him to evict him from the suit space without adopting due course of law.

3. Respondent-Board filed its written statement and claimed that the plaintiff was a licensee under Dharmarth Trust for a period of six months for selling Barf Malai from Darshani Darwaza to Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi Ji. The defendant denied the status of the plaintiff/appellant as a tenant and asserted that the space was allotted to the plaintiff on license for a fixed term. It has been claimed that the license of the plaintiff has been revoked and he is an unauthorized trespasser.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :

“1 Whether the plaintiff was the tenant of Dharamrath Trust. If so, what is its effect on the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff was the licensee of Dharamrath Trust. If so, what is its effect on the suit?

3. In case Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly without adopting due course of law? ---OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, if so, how?” ----OPD

5. Relief?

5. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties concluded that the appellant/plaintiff has been unable to prove that he was tenant of the premises/space. It was further concluded that no interest was ever created in favour of the appellant by the defendant in respect of the property in question and he was only given permission to make use of the route from Darshani Deodi up to Bhawan of Mata Vaishno Devi Ji for selling Barf Malai. According to the trial court, the legal possession of the premises continued to be with the defendant-Board and the plaintiff was only permitted to make use of the premises for the purposes of selling Barf Malai. In view of this finding arrived at by the learned trial court, neither the relief of declaration nor the relief of injunction was granted in favour of the appellant and the suit was dismissed.

6. The learned 1st appellate court vide its impugned judgment dated 25.10.2018 concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and concluded that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he was inducted as tenant in the suit property or that he was treated as a tenant by the defendant-Board. It was further observed that only inference which can be drawn is that the plaintiff was a licensee of the suit property. With these findings, the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant.

7. Through the medium of instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned courts