B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) LEGAL notice dated 16-8-1999 issued by an Advocate, on behalf of the first respondent A. P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, terminating the tenancy of the petitioners, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, is challenged in this writ petition.

( 2 ) PROPERTY bearing No. 6-1-1057, known as zard Bungalow situated at khairatabad, Hyderabad, is a wakf property. There is no dispute about the same. The said property was leased out under a registered lease deed dated 5-1-1970 in favour of one late Roopkishore Gupta, for a period of sixty years with effect from 5-1-1970 under an express permission granted by the first respondent - A. P. State Wa kf Board (for short the Board } vide resol u tion dated 22-12-1969. The terms and conditions regulating the lease were set out in the said registered lease deed dated 5-1-1970. We are not concerned in the instant writ petition with the various terms and conditions and as to whether the said lease could have been granted at all.

( 3 ) THE said Roopkishore Gupta after obtaining lease, had demolished the existing structure and constructed cinema theatres - Meera Talkies and Meera deluxe Cinema. After the death of Roopkishore Gupta, his son, Raj Kumar gupta succeeded the property as a lessee under the lease deed and after his death, the petitioners are continuing as the existing lessees of the property.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the transaction of lease is between the beneficiaries under the deed of wakf on one hand and die petitioners father-in-law on the other. The Board does not have any authority in law or jurisdiction to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the said transaction of lease. It is claimed that the predecessor in title of the petitioners were authorised to make constructions in the vacant area covered by the lease deed and accordingly constructions were made.

( 5 ) BE that as it may, the first respondent herein got issued a legal notice purporting it to be under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the ground that the lessee has violated some of the conditions of the lease and the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 5-1-1970, are listed in the impugned notice. The notice itself would disclose that action has been initiated determining the lease at the instance and request of the Muthawalli.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, contends that the Board has no jurisdiction or authority in law as the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act ), do not confer any jurisdiction upon the Board to determine the tenancy between the Wakf institution and its tenants. It is urged that the notice, if at all, any, could have been issued only by the Muthawalli and not by the Board through its lawyer.

( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Board, it is stated that the petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed and, therefore, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the lease has been issued and got served upon the petitioners, ft is the case of the Board that the petitioners are carrying the business of Cinema, which, itself, is an objectionable business, as per the Islamic religion. However, the Court, in the instant writ petition is not concerned with the said controversy. It is submitted that under Section T-2 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Board has jurisdiction in law to determine the lease, The power to issue such a notice is traced to Sec, 32 of 1995 Act. The rest of the averments made in the counter affidavit may not be relevant.

( 8 ) IN the counter affidavit, filed by the contesting respondents, it is stated that the question relating to the validity of notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be gone into by this Court, as i t is always open to the petitioners to raise all such pleas raised in the writ petition, as and when any suit is filed against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document