IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal was extended by the 2013 amendment to cover matters relating to eviction of tenants and determination of rights and liabilities of lessors and lessees, which were not within its purview prior to the amendment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated February 3, 2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 7295 of 2011. The learned court rejected the application challenging the maintainability of the suit which was filed by the petitioners at the stage of arguments.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) clearly empowered the waqf tribunal to decide the issues with regard to eviction of a tenant and determination of the rights and obligations of the lessors and the lessees in respect of a waqf property. It is further submitted that Section 83(2) had empowered the mutawalli of a waqf property to approach the tribunal for any relief relating to a waqf.

3. According to Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners, a conjoint reading of Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 83 would indicate that all matters relating to a waqf property would be determined by the waqf tribunal. Pointing out to the questions for determination in Sub-Section (1) Mr. Banerjee submits that even prior to the amendment in 2013, ‘disputes’, ‘questions’ or ‘other matters’ relating to a waqf property or a waqf, were amenable to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Further Mr. Banerjee referred to the provisions of Section 85 of the said Act in support of his contention that the jurisdiction of the civil court, was barred.

4. According to Mr. Banerjee, the expression ‘other matters’ would include within its ambit a dispute between the mutawalli and the tenant, giving rise to a suit for eviction of a tenant from a waqf property.

5. Mr. Banerjee submits that under Sub-Section (2) of Section 83, the fact that the mutawalli was entitled to approach the tribunal in relation to any issue in relation to the ‘waqf’, meant that the mutawalli was empowered to even approach the tribunal for reliefs against a tenant and to seek recovery of possession of the tenanted property. Hence, the order impugned must be set aside as the learned court proceeded without jurisdiction by entertaining the suit.

6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari & ors, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414. Specific reference has been made to paragraphs 58 to 69 of the said judgment.

7. Mr. Banerjee submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the question whether a suit for perpetual injunction was maintainable before the tribunal, answered the same in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee versus Ibrahim Haji reported in (2014) 16 SCC 65. The decision rendered in Ramesh Gobindram versus Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf reported in (2010) 8 SCC 726 was distinguished in the decision of W.B. Waqf Board versus Anis Fatma Begum reported in (2010) 14 SCC 588. The Apex Court held that the waqf tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction. The Hon’ble Apex Court differed with the view in Ramesh Gobindram (supra). It was held that those disputes which were not specifically provided in the Waqf Act, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal as provided in Section 83(1) of the said Act. Finally, paragraph 65 was relied upon by Mr. Banerjee in support of his contention that even a suit for eviction, although not specifically mentioned to be under the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal before the amendment, should be read into the provisions of the statute and the ratio of the decision in Punjab Waqf Board versus Sham Singh Harike reported in (2019) 4 SCC 698 would apply.

8. Therefore, according to Mr. Banerjee, the decision of the learned civil court, inter alia, holding that, apart from questions relating to waqf property, the other issues may not be tried by the tribunal, cannot be accepted in view of the specific observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 65 of the judgment in Rashid Wali B