Civil courts retain jurisdiction to determine eviction claims even if waqf status is asserted, unless unequivocally proven as such. Defendants cannot contest landlord's title without substantiating their claim.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This is defendants’ second appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 42-A/2017 (Bhagwandas Dengwani & others Vs. Vinesh Kumar Asra) by which the appeal preferred by the defendants was party allowed directing the appellants to pay Rs. 18,000/- to the plaintiff and affirmed the remaining part of the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2017 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2008 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed and directed the eviction of the defendants from the rented shop.

2. For sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2008 before the trial Court.

3. The instant Second Appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 16.04.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether Courts below were justified in deciding the Issue No. 2 in view of the bar contained under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 ?

(2) Whether finding of the Court below holding that Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, is not independent and dependent upon Sections 6 & 7 of the said Act, is perverse ?

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 08.07.2008 against the defendants seeking their eviction, vacant possession of the disputed shop, recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 20,800/-, damages and further damages from the date of presentation of the suit until delivery of vacant possession of the shop mainly contending that:-

(A) The property is an old two-storied house with cheap girders situated at Sadar Bazar, Ward 45, R.S. Shukla Road, Raipur, bearing Municipal House No. 45/124, measuring 564.30 sq. ft. (hereafter referred to as “suit property”) in which the shop is located. It has been contended that Abdul Rahim Khan, son of Late Masood Khan, resident of Juni Line, Bilaspur (Tahsil and District Bilaspur), was the sole owner of the suit property. The suit property consists of shop wherein the front portion of the shop is used for business activity and back portion is used for storage of goods. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendants’ father Parumal, S/o Shivnathmal, was a tenant of Abdul Rahim Khan and resides at ground floor which is used as non-residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. It is also case of the plaintiff that Parumal was doing cloth business in the said shop and after his death, the defendants being his legal heirs, continued the cloth business in the same shop as tenants of Abdul Rahim Khan.

(B) It has been further contended that Abdul Rahim Khan sold the said house to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 13.01.2005 and after purchasing the property by the plaintiff from Abdul Rahim Khan, the defendants became tenants of the plaintiff in respect of the rented portion. The plaintiff sent a notice on 05.07.2005 to the defendants through his counsel informing them about the purchase and demanded rent but the defendants did not pay the rent. It has been further contended that tenancy month commenced on the first day of the English calendar month and ended on the last day of the same month, and the rent was payable in advance every month. Since the defendants failed to pay rent within two months of demand, they became liable for eviction from the suit property. It has been further contended that the plaintiff sent another notice on 10.06.2008 to the defendants through his counsel stating that he has terminated the tenancy w.e.f. 30.06.2008 and demanded vacant possession of the disputed shop along with the entire arrears of rent. Even after receiving the notice, the defendants neither paid the arrears of rent nor handed over vacant possession of the shop and denied the plaintiff’s ownership and status as landlord.