PER JHANJI, J : 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. 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. Reference in this regard has been made to case Beant Singh Vs. It is contended that on the expiry of the licence period, the plaintiff has no right to remain in the demised premises. Reference in this regard has been made to case Beant Singh Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer, Jammu, AIR 1960 J&K 83, wherein this Court held that the law does not permit a licensee whose license has been validly revoked to exercise his licence any longer. The order for temporary injunction would in fact prevent the licensor who was the owner of the land and who was in legal possession of it from lawfully exercising his rights of ownership and possession in respect of it. An injunction could not be granted to prevent doing of an act which a party was lawfully entitled to do. Reference has also been made to a Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, reported as Chandu Lal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1978 Delhi 174, wherein it has been held that on the expiry of the licence or the revocation of the licence, the licensee has no right to remain in possession and has no right to oppose his eviction. 6. Learned Counsel further contended that the plaintiff before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to seek the temporary injunction is bound to show that he has a legal right and entitled to defend the possession. It has been contended that the plaintiff has not been able to show that on expiry of the period of licence he has any legal right to remain in possession of the demised premises. 7. In support of the preliminary objection that no appeal is maintainable by virtue of section 104(2) Civil Procedure Code against an order pasased by a Single Judge of High Court, on an appeal in exercise of his jurisdiction as an appellate Court u/s 104(1) C.P.C. learned counsel cited AIR 1984 Bom. 478; AIR 1989 Bom. 68 and AIR 2002 Chhatisgarh 6. In answer to preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the pliantiff cited Full Bench of this court titled Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Balbir Singh, AIR 1981 J&K 70 for the proposition that Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgement passed by Single Judge on an appeal from a decree or order passed by a lower court in its original jurisdiction. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the precedents cited at the bar. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the precedents cited at the bar. 9. In our view, it is not necessary to address ourselves to the merits of the case because the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the appeal deserves to be sustained. 10. Admittedly, with the plaint the plaintiff filed an application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. By the order of the trial court, the application of the plaintiff was dismissed . Against the order passed on application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, an appeal has been provided under section 104(1) read with order 43 Rule 1 CPC. In respect of interim injunction, it is covered by order 43 Rule 1 (r) . Therefore, order passed by the trial court under order 39 Rule 1 was appealable under order 43, Rule (r) of the code. Plaintiff filed Civil Ist Misc. Appeal in this court which has been dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge. Sub Section (2) of section 104 specifically prohibits second appeal against such an order. 11. In case New Keniworth Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs Orissa State Finance Corporation & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 462 the precise question before the Supreme Court was whether Letters patent Appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal in exercise of the Jurisdiction under section 104(1) of the Code. Their Lordships of the supreme Court interpreting the provisions of section 104 held the Letters Patent Appeal is barred under section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In New Keniworth Hotel (P) Ltd. (Supra), an order had been passed on an application filed under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and an appeal against that order was preferred before the Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. From the order of the learned Single Judge, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court held that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against an order of the learned Single Judge since section 104(2) CPC specifically prohibits an appeal against an order passed by the appellate Court under section 104(1) CPC. The Division Bench of the High Court held that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against an order of the learned Single Judge since section 104(2) CPC specifically prohibits an appeal against an order passed by the appellate Court under section 104(1) CPC. Supreme Court up-held the view taken by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. 12. This question was again considered by the Supreme Court in Hemlata Panda & Others Vs Sukri Dibya and others(2000) 2 SCC 218. In this case before the Supreme Court, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession was dismissed by the Munsiffs Court. Appeal was dismissed by a Subordinate Judge by non-appearance of the counsel for the plaintiff. Application Under order 41 Rule 19 CPC for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with section 104 CPC against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. Division Bench entertained the appeal and held the appeal to be maintainable. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court. Following the decision in New Keniworth Hotel (p) Ltd. (supra), Their Lordships of tile Supreme Court held that the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge was not maintainable as an appeal from the order of the subordinate Court can be entertained in those circumstances provided by section 104(l) CPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of tile view that where the original order is not passed by the subordinate Court, but is passed by the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction, then if appeal under section 104 (1) is not provided the letters patent may enable such a type of order to be applicable. 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject, it is not necessary for us to deal with the judgements of the Bombay High Court , Chhatisgarh High Court and the Full Bench of this court, cited by the counsel for the paties. 14. 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject, it is not necessary for us to deal with the judgements of the Bombay High Court , Chhatisgarh High Court and the Full Bench of this court, cited by the counsel for the paties. 14. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court, the present Letters Patent Appeals against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction as an appellate court section 104(1) read with order 43 Rule 1 (r) of Civil Procedure Code, are not maintainable and on this ground alone, the appeals are to be dismissed. It is so ordered accordingly.