STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Principal Sessions Judge Jammu R.S Jain on Tuesday issued fresh notice to Chief Secretary J and K and PWD Commissioner Secretary after observing that in the case filed by Dr. Karan Singh against State seeking eviction from Raj Bhawan notices were not received back and no one has appeared on behalf of respondent.
In the petition, it was submitted that the Maharani of the State of J and K, late Yasho Rajya Lakshmi, wife of Dr. Karan Singh owned various properties in J and K. Out of her properties, a premises comprising of ‘Ranbir Mahal’ and ‘Karan Niwas’ with attached outhouses along with all the land underneath and appurtenant thereto measuring 126 Kanals, including servant-quarters, lawns, orchards, trees, fences, ditches, easements and other appurtenances thereof including passage, pathways and road leading up thereto from the city entrance with five guard-rooms belonging to the said entrances (i.e. the suit premises) was taken on a month to month lease by the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir from the erstwhile owner Late Maharani Yasho Rajya Lakshmi Ji, vide duly executed Lease-Deed dated 1st May 1967 (the demised-premises was aptly delineated with the red-coloured line in the plan annexed with the Lease-Deed). The lease contained a clause to commence w.e.f. 1st May 1967 by mutual consent, on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000.it was further submitted that driven by their devotion to charitable causes, Late Maharani Yasho Rajya Lakshmi and Dr. Karan Singh created a public-charitable Trust under the name and style as ‘Hari-Tara Charitable Trust’ by a Deed of Trust dated 15th January, 1970 (duly registered with ld. Sub-Registrar Jammu on 15th January, 1970) and dedicated their properties comprising of ‘Ranbir Mahal’ and ‘Karan Niwas’ with attached outhouses alongwith all the land underneath and appurtenant thereto, and, another property comprising of three Manda Staff Houses No. 3AB, 4AB and 5AB with land underneath and appurtenant thereto, situate at Jammu.
In the petition it has been submitted that the retention of the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff Trust by the defendants and its usage as a residence-cum-office of the Governor, is, by any comparison, not of greater necessity than plaintiff Trust’s requirement of putting the suit-premises and income there from for usage towards various charitable causes as set out in the Trust-Deed. It is respectfully submitted that the defendants, being a mighty and resourceful State, do have various options available at their end, for shifting the usage, as the suit-premises is being put to, to any other place, even though plaintiff Trust’s statutory right to seek possession of suit premises, after terminating the lease, remains unaffected by the availability or otherwise of such option with the defendants. It is further submitted that comparative analysis of the necessity of the suit land by the parties to the suit is no plank available to the defendants to deny the plaintiff Trust its property. It is important to state that the respondents have not been able to provide a suitable State-owned accommodation to the Governor of the J and K State. The defendants, however, cannot retain the suit premises in perpetuity against the wishes of the plaintiff.
In the suit seeking direction to pass a decree of ejectment against the defendants from the suit-property and directing the defendants to hand-over the vacant possession to the plaintiff of the suit property along with a decree for recovery of Rs. 16, 368,000 as compensation for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises w.e.f. the date of termination of the tenancy and also for such other future amount as compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per day of un-authorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants, till its possession is handed over to the plaintiffs along with an interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum thereon. Advocate Vikram Sharma appeared for the petitioner.JNF
