SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ibrahim Khan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3053 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10768 of 2020)
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Waqf - Tenant - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 83(2) - The court interpreted Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, emphasizing the necessity of establishing tenancy through evidence, and ruled that the appellant's claim should not have been dismissed at the threshold without a full hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order rejecting his claim of tenancy in a Waqf property, asserting he was running the shop on behalf of his elder brother, who was the actual tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's status as a tenant or unauthorized occupant was a factual question that required evidence, and thus the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition was premature.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a tenant entitled to relief under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, and if the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that factual determinations regarding tenancy should not be resolved at the preliminary stage without allowing parties to present evidence.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal's order is set aside, restoring the appellant's petition for further proceedings.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby his challenge to the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the Waqf Board Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, `the Tribunal’) was turned down.
3. Vide the above-stated order, the Tribunal accepted an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the Rajasthan Waqf Board, and rejected the petition moved by the appellant under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, `the Act’) claiming himself to be a tenant in Shop No.31 which is a Waqf property.
4. The Tribunal was of the view that since the appellant himself had admitted that the tenancy was in the name of his elder brother – Vijay Kumar Soni, and that he was running the shop “Sony E-Mitra” because his elder brother was not maintaining good health, this was a sufficient admission to hold that the appellant was not a tenant and as such, his petition under Section 83(2) of the Act was not maintainable. The High Court has affirmed the said order by observing as follows:
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. It appears to us that the statement of the appellant recorded in the Police Station Gopalpura to the effect that the shop in question is under the tenancy of his elder brother (Vijay Kumar Soni) or that he was running the shop because his elder brother was not maintaining good health is a question of fact that could be determined at an appropriate stage on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. If that statement is read in its entirety, it may be seen that the appellant is in physical possession of the shop and is running his business. Whether he is a tenant or an unauthorised occupant or a licensee, etc. are essentially the questions of fact which will be decided in due course of time. It was not a case where Order 7 Rule 11 could be invoked to reject the appellant’s petition at the threshold.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Waqf Board Tribunal, Jaipur, as well as the judgment dated 23.01.2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, are set aside. The petition filed by the appellant under Section 83(2) of the Act is restored to its original number.
8. The Tribunal is directed to complete the proceedings after giving fair opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence and make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings, the status quo, as directed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020, shall be maintained by the parties.
Tenancy claims under the Waqf Act require evidentiary support, and dismissal at the threshold without a hearing is improper.
Point of Law : Due process need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property.
An occupant of Wakf property without valid authority is an encroacher, justifying eviction under the Waqf Act.
The Waqf Act empowers the Chief Executive Officer to address encroachments on Waqf properties, with exclusive jurisdiction for related disputes resting with Waqf tribunals.
The Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction for passing orders for eviction of tenants from Waqf property, as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg Versus Farid Pindari and Others reported....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the expanded jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, as provided by the Amendment Act 27 of 2013, to cover landlord-tenant disputes and the rights and o....
Waqf Board has the power under Section 54 of the Waqf Act to order eviction of encroachers from the waqf property.
Possession of tenant must be protected unless due process under Waqf Act is followed, and tenants may participate in bidding for tenancy.
The court balanced the petitioner's claim of tenancy with the provisions of the Waqf Act and related rules, allowing the bidding process to determine the future possession of the shop.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.