1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Reasi, dated 23.09.2006 in file No. 17/m titled `Subash Chander v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent owns a shop near Pacci Chabeel Katra enroute to Mata Vaishno Devi. The appellant alleges that the shop was let out to him at a monthly rent of Rs.25,820.50 during the year 1977-78 by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent namely Dharmarth Trust, Jammu. He alleges that the Dharmarth Trust permitted him to Extend and construct the suit shop by enhancing the annual rent to Rs. 29,500/- w.e.f. 15.09.1979. His grievance is that though he continues to run the shop since the year 1978, the respondent is bent upon him to eject him from the suit shop. He alleges that he continued to pay the rent to the Dharmarth Trust upto 1986 and onwards to the respondent upto 1996 at the agreed rate of Rs. 29,500/- per year, but thereafter he could not pay the rent because he was out of possession of the shop and was not receiving anything from Narayan Dutt, the occupant of the shop because of some litigation. When he got the possession of the shop from Narayan Dutt, he applied to the respondent to settle the installments for payment of arrears of rent. Total rent from 1996 to September, 2005 was calculated as Rs. 2,88,802/-, for which four installments were fixed. The appellant issued four cheques to the respondent bearing Nos. 362217, 362218, 362219 and 362220 dated 01.12.2002, 01.03.2003, 01.06.2003 and 01.09.2003 respectively, each for rupees 72,200.50/-. The respondent, according to the appellant, encashed two cheques dated 01.12.2002 & 01.03.2003, but the other two cheques dated 01.06.2003 & 01.09.2003 were not encashed. 3. The appellant further alleges that on 22.06.2003, some employees of the respondent came on the suit shop with labourer and started throwing out the goods lying in the shop, which action was resisted by the people and the other neighbourers of the appellant. A F.I.R. was lodged in this behalf with Police Station, Katra, on 23.06.2003 against the officials of the respondent under Sections 452 & 427 RPC for forcibly trespassing into the shop of the appellant and causing damage in the shop. A F.I.R. was lodged in this behalf with Police Station, Katra, on 23.06.2003 against the officials of the respondent under Sections 452 & 427 RPC for forcibly trespassing into the shop of the appellant and causing damage in the shop. Appellant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Reasi, on 18.07.2003, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the appellant from the suit shop forcibly without adopting due course of law. An interim injunction to maintain status quo with respect to suit shop was issued in his favour. The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application for interim relief and vacated the order of status quo vide order dated 23.09.2006. 4. The appellant is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application for interim relief by the Trial Court and vacation of order of status-quo on various grounds, inter alia, that the Trial Court has not appreciated the controversy arising in the case and has dismissed the application in the most perfunctory manner. 5. Heard. I have considered the matter and have gone through the record summoned from the Trial Court. 6. The appellant, as observed above, has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, from interfering, evicting or otherwise interfering in the peaceful possession and conduct of business of the appellant over the shop situated at Puran Daroor, near Pacci Chabeel Katra, known as Milk Bar. The appellant has alleged in the suit that he was the tenant of the shop and was paying rent as fixed by the Dharmarth Trust, to the respondent. 7. The suit has been resisted by the respondent, who has denied the status of the appellant as tenant of the property. It has, however, been admitted by the respondent that the appellant was in possession of the shop as he was a licensee of the same but that the period of license has expired, as such, the possession of the appellant over the suit shop, according to the respondent, was not legal. According to the respondent the relationship between the parties to the suit is that of a licensor and licensee; that the license between the parties already stands revoked vide order dated 19.06.2003 whereby the plaintiff was called upon to remove his belongings on or before 21.06.2003. According to the respondent the relationship between the parties to the suit is that of a licensor and licensee; that the license between the parties already stands revoked vide order dated 19.06.2003 whereby the plaintiff was called upon to remove his belongings on or before 21.06.2003. The notice of revocation of license was duly served upon the plaintiff by handing over the copy of the notice to the plaintiff and also by pasting the same at the entrance of the shop; that since the license of the plaintiff already stands revoked the plaintiff has no right to seek injunction against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff, it is being contended by the respondent is not maintainable on this count alone. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues on 26.08.2006:-- "1. Whether the suit is to be dismissed under the provisions of Suit Valuation Act? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff is the tenant of defendants in respect of the suit ship? OPP 3. In case the issue No.2 is not proved, what is the nature of the possession of the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether the defendant intends to evict the plaintiff from the suit shop without adopting the due course of Law? OPP 5. Relief." 9. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties as well as the issues framed, I find that the issues regarding the status of the appellant as the tenant of the suit shop as also the nature of his possession have already been raised by the trial Court. When the trial Court, itself, finds that a triable issue regarding the status of the appellant arises from the suit, it ought not to have disposed of the interim application for interim relief on the ground that no prima facie case was made out in favour of the appellant. The trial Court has, in a detailed order, itself observed that the issues arising in the case required evidence of the parties. In para 22 of the order, the trial Court has observed as under:-- "22. Generally the difference between a lease and licence is to be determined by finding out the real intention between the parties and the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, evidence is yet to be adduced by the parties." 10. In para 22 of the order, the trial Court has observed as under:-- "22. Generally the difference between a lease and licence is to be determined by finding out the real intention between the parties and the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, evidence is yet to be adduced by the parties." 10. Once the Court was satisfied that the real intention between the parties was to be determined and the surrounding circumstances were required to be taken note of and the evidence was yet to be adduced by the parties, the Court should have in the circumstances of the case maintained status quo of the property till the final disposal of the case. 11. Law is well settled that before granting injunction, the Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case in favour of the party seeking injunction and such person would suffer irreparable loss in case injunction is refused and the balance of convenience is in favour of such person. 12. I find the trial Court has not arrived at a just conclusion while holding that the appellant was not having a prima facie case in his favour. Prima facie case means that there are issues to be tried and points and pleas to be decided and determined by the Court. If there are points in the suit or pleas in the suit to be determined in between the parties, then there may be said to be a prima facie case, and the question of granting injunction may be considered particularly when the plaintiff is shown to be in possession of the suit property. Prima facie case does not mean that it must be shown that in all probability the party applying for injunction would succeed in the suit. It would be sufficient for him to show that he has a fair question to raise as to "the existence of the right he claims and that it is necessary in the interest of justice to presume the said right till the disposal of the suit. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title. For establishing a prima facie case, it is not necessary for the party to prove his case to the hilt and if a fair question of law and fact is raised for determination, it should be taken that a prima facie case is established. 13. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title. For establishing a prima facie case, it is not necessary for the party to prove his case to the hilt and if a fair question of law and fact is raised for determination, it should be taken that a prima facie case is established. 13. Admittedly, the appellant was in possession of the shop. It is not disputed that he entered into the possession of the shop authorisedly. His plea is that he continues to be in possession as tenant of the shop while the respondent disputes the same and contends that his status is that of licensee and that the period of licence has also expired. It is well settled law that even the owner of the land cannot dispossess a person, who is in possession of the property without due course of law. Once the status of the appellant was in issue in a regularly instituted suit, the due course of law had to be applied for determination of nature of the appellants possession over the suit shop. 14. In the circumstances, I find that the trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction properly by dismissing the application for interim relief. The proper course in the circumstance of the case was to direct maintaining of status quo with regard to the possession of the suit shop and ask the parties to lead the evidence and expedite the disposal of the main case. 15. For these reasons, while accepting the present appeal, I direct the parties to maintain status quo as it existed on the date of institution of the suit on the subject matter. The trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the main suit. Since the issues have been framed, the parties be asked to produce the evidence. In such suit where the person inoccupation of the premises alleges tenancy and his status as such is denied, it is always possible that the person who is in possession of the property may try to prolong the litigation so that he enjoys the usufructs of the property under the pretext of the suit. The trial Court may look into this aspect and try to complete the evidence of the appellant as far as practicable within a period of one month from the date the file is received by the trial Court. The trial Court may look into this aspect and try to complete the evidence of the appellant as far as practicable within a period of one month from the date the file is received by the trial Court. The appellant shall cooperate with the trial Court in this behalf and shall produce all the witnesses/evidence on which he relies within one month. If he requires the assistance of the Court, he may avail the same by filing a list of witnesses but the Court shall apply its mind "about reasonableness of the same and in that event it shall be the responsibility of the appellant to procure the attendance of the witnesses. Thereafter, the respondent shall produce its evidence within one month. Let the trial Court expedite and try to complete the trail within a period of three months from the date, the parties appear before the Court. 16. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 20th of December, 2006. Order accordingly.