The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the property in question would exclusively vest with the Waqf Tribunal and not with the authorities under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26th July, 2021 of the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi passed in RCT No. 24/2018, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated 16th October, 2017 directing restoration of the electricity supply to the property in question consisting of two rooms and an open courtyard on the first floor, known as Balakhana (Naqqarkhana), Main Gate, Dargah Shah Mardan at Aliganj, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, was set aside, with the further observations that the petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not maintainable before the Rent Controller. A further direction had been given to the respondent no.3/NDMC to disconnect the electricity supply to the property in question, after 30 days of the impugned order, within which time the petitioner was to approach the right forum.

2. The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether in light of the amendments carried out to Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Waqf Act) in 2013, the remedy of the petitioner in respect of disconnection of his electricity connection by the respondent no.1 would lie before the Rent Controller (under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) or before the Waqf Tribunal in terms of the Waqf Act.

3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the RCT had come to an erroneous conclusion that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the petitioner, and that the right forum for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was the Waqf Tribunal. It is further submitted that even after the 2013 amendments to the Waqf Act, the petitioner could not have approached the Waqf Tribunal since the dispute was not in the nature of a dispute in terms of Section 6 or Section 7 of the Waqf Act. It is also pointed out that though, initially the petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 had been filed only against the respondents no. 1 and 2, but since they had taken the stand that it was not their obligation to supply electricity and it was the respondent no.3/NDMC, which was the competent authority to supply electricity, the NDMC was impleaded as a party. The Rent Controller had directed the respondent no.3/NDMC to install a sub-meter at the suit premises and supply electricity to the same, the cost of which was to be borne by the petitioner. This was an interim order against which the respondent no.1 had preferred an appeal before the RCT. The RCT had therefore, misdirected itself by going into the question of jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without allowing the Rent Controller to decide this issue.

4. Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 has drawn attention to provisions of Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act to contend that it is not just issues arising under Section 6 or Section 7 of the Waqf Act that are subject matter of jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, but all matters covered under Section 83 of the Waqf Act would also be subject to jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. Attention has also been drawn to provisions of Section 108A of the Waqf Act which gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this Act over any other laws in force including the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

5. Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, counsel for the respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit where a categorical stand has been taken that in view of the amendments carried out to the Waqf Act in 2013, the Waqf Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the lis between lessor and lessee of a Waqf property and hence, the jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would be barred. It is further stated since the proceedings under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were initiated by the petiti