Misrepresentation by a party during proceedings undermines their legal claims, rendering a review application untenable when prior ownership admissions and evidence of estoppel exist.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present review application has been filed by Mohd. Rizwan (hereinafter "Review Applicant"), son of Late Mohd. Razi, describing his residence at property no.1068, Ward No.1, measuring approximately 425 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 1665 (New Khasra No. 1151/3), situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas (Mehrauli), New Delhi- 110030 (hereinafter "subject property"), seeking review of the order dated 15th December, 2021, passed by this Court in CRP 223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019.

3. In CRP 223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Mehvish Adil, Mohd. Adil and Afroznisha (hereinafter collectively "Petitioners") had challenged the orders dated 4th October, 2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal/NDD/PHC (hereinafter "Waqf Tribunal") in ML No.27/2018 titled Mehvish Adil v. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors., in ML No.29/2018 titled Mohd Adil v. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors. and in ML No.28/2018 titled Afroznisha v. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors. Vide the said orders, the applications of Petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC were dismissed. Effectively, the prayer seeking injunction against the Delhi Wakf Board/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter "Wakf Board") from dispossessing the Petitioners, from property being 1068, Ward No.l, Khasra no. 1151/3, Mehrauli, Delhi ad measuring 425 sq. yards (hereinafter "suit property"), was rejected. In the revision petitions, vide this Court's order dated 15th December, 2021, the revision petitions of the Petitioners therein, i.e., Ms. Afroznisha, Ms. Mehvish Adil and Md. Adil, were dismissed. The suit property was also shown to have been entered into the list of Auqaf published by the Delhi Administration in the Gazette dated 30th December, 1976 (hereinafter "Waqf Notification"). The operative portion of the said order dated 15th December, 2021, read as under:

"35. Thus, it is the settled legal position that (due process need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property. It can even mean rejection of relief in a proceeding initiated by the occupants/encroachers or persons in possession.

36. Moreover, in the present petitions, the Petitioners have admitted the ownership of the Waqf Board over the suit property by entering into rent agreements.

37. The recitals in the rent agreements dated 16th October, 2008 and 5th November, 2008 leave no scope for any ambiguity. These rent deeds and material facts have been deliberately and intentionally concealed from the Waqf Tribunal when the plaints were filed. The rent deeds are very clear that the tenancy was only for a period of 11 months. The Petitioners are encroachers/trespassers and in any case, unauthorized occupants of public land belonging to the Waqf and the said issue has been considered in detail by the Waqf Tribunal. The submission made on behalf of the Petitioners to the effect that 'due process' has not been followed is thus, liable to be rejected.

38. In any event, the Petitioners having entered into rent agreements are estopped from challenging the title of the Waqf Board as stipulated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the dismissal of the applications for injunction vide orders of the Waqf Tribunal dated 4th October, 2019, is in accordance with law.

39. Accordingly, the applications for injunction having been rejected, the Waqf Board is free to take proceedings in accordance with law to take possession of the suit property.

40. Further, in view of the conduct of the Petitioners of co