IMPORTANT POINT
The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Waqf properties, including tenant eviction, as per the amended Waqf Act, overriding state tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) :

1. This application has been directed against order dated 25th July, 2018 passed by learned Waqf Tribunal, West Bengal in Suit No. 33 of 2015, whereby learned Tribunal has allowed defendants’ application filed under order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of plaint.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff’s case is that the suit property is a Waqf property duly registered with the Board of Waqf, West Bengal under E.C. No. 4637 and is known as “Amjed Ali Waqf Estate”. Father of defendant no.1 was a monthly tenant in respect of the land measuring about 7 cottah 14 chittacks with partial structure standing therein, which is a part and parcel of the aforesaid waqf estate. After the death of his father opposite party herein/defendant no.1 occupied the said premises.

3. Petitioner’s further case is that defendant no.1 in violation of the waqf laws has made major additional alternation, changing the nature and character of the waqf estate and has converted the waqf property for his own unlawful commercial use and it is further alleged that defendant has sublet a major portion of the waqf estate in favour of unauthorized occupants.

4. The petitioner herein accordingly served a notice dated 01.12.2014 upon the opposite party herein/defendant no.1, terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 31st January, 2015 and demanded khas possession of the suit property from the opposite party/defendant no.1. Despite service of notice the defendant failed to act in terms of notice and for which petitioner herein filed aforesaid suit for eviction being Suit No.33 of 2015. The defendants/opposite party herein entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement. During pendency of the suit the defendant no.1/opposite party herein filed an Application under order VII rule 11of the Code contending that the suit is not maintainable as the suit is barred under section 3AA of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short Act of 1997) and also in view of the provisions mentioned under section 6 and 7 read with section 83 of the Waqf Act 1995 (in short Act of 1995). The petitioner herein filed written objection against the said application. The learned Tribunal below by the order impugned allowed defendants aforesaid prayer, holding therein that the plaint is rejected being not maintainable.

5. Mr. Rahber learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that the suit property is a waqf property but learned Tribunal below failed to consider that section 83 (1) of the Act 1995 is amended by Waqf Amendment Act 2013, which provides that any dispute, question or other matter relating thereto, including eviction of a tenant are maintainable only before Waqf Tribunal. He further submits that under section 85 of the said Act as amended by Waqf Amendment Act 2013, the present dispute relating to eviction of tenant from the Waqf property is barred before any Civil Court including Revenue Court or before any other authority.

6. Petitioner in this context also referred Article 251 of the Constitution of India which provides that if any inconsistency arose between law made by the parliament and law made by the legislature of the state, the law made by the parliament shall prevail and law made by the legislature of the state shall to the extent of the repugnancy shall be inoperative. He further submits that on conjoint reading of section 3 with section 44 of the Act of 1997, it appears that the said Act does not create an express bar for entertainment of the suit relating to Waqf Property.

7. He further argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the object behind establishing a Waqf Tribunal under a special enactment. The obvious purpose of constituting such a Tribunal is that a lot of suits relating to Waqf are being filed in the courts in India and they are occupying a lot of time of all the courts in the country, which resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the c