Facts in Brief:

1. This revision petition arises out of eviction proceedings in O.S. No. 13 of 2004 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. Having suffered a decree of eviction, the tenants are before us.

2. The facts in brief are that the then Muthavally of the plaintiff Wakf inducted the defendants' predecessor as a tenant into the suit schedule property, a house, about fifty years ago. Though the monthly rent began at Rs. 200/- from August 1999 onwards, it was said to have been raised to Rs. 700/-. In the course of time, on 12.09.2001, the successor Muthavalli issued a notice to the defendants, who succeeded as tenants after the death of their predecessor, demanding arrears of rent and also vacant possession of the property.

3. Besides traversing the notice contents in her reply, the first defendant sent a demand draft for Rs. 7920/- declaring that amount to be the arrears of rent. Later, on 23.7.2003, the landlord issued another notice terminating the tenancy, apart from demanding arrears of rent. When the defendants did not comply with the plaintiff’s demand, it initiated eviction proceedings.

4. The defendants set up a defence primarily contending that the property does not belong to the Wakf and that it is amenable to Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In other words, the defendants have sought to take shelter under the beneficial provisions of the rent control enactment. According to the defendants, the building was taken on lease about 50 years ago, and there was no periodical raise in the rent, which remained at Rs. 200/- per month. Even in 1997, the tenants agreed to raise the rent only by Rs. 200/- rather than Rs. 700/-. Eventually, they have contended that the suit for eviction is not maintainable, that the property does not belong to the wakf and that there was no cause of action for the landlord to seek their eviction.

5. During the trial, the learned Tribunal, among other things, has framed a specific issue whether the plaint schedule property is outside the purview of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

6. The plaintiff examined on its behalf the Muthavalli as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 documents. On the other hand, the first defendant got herself examined as DW1, apart from marking Exts.B1 to B7 documents.

7. Holding that the property belongs to Wakf and that the defendants are liable to vacate, the learned Tribunal decreed the suit through its judgment dated 6th December 2006. Aggrieved, the first defendant alone filed the present revision, in which the plaintiff is the first respondent. They shall be hereafter referred to thus.

Submissions:

Petitioners:

8. Sri Thomas Antony, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, has strenuously contended that the first respondent, has miserably failed to establish before the Tribunal that the property belongs to the Wakf. According to him, the Tribunal's reliance on Ext.A10, the Wakf deed, is grossly erroneous and misplaced. In elaboration, he has submitted that the property in Ext.A10 does not cover, in the first place, the plaint schedule property. He has, in the alternative, submitted that even the description of the property in Ext.A10 entirely differs from and does not match with that of the suit schedule property.

9. As a sequel to his submission that the property does not belong to the Wakf, the learned counsel has further contended that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the rent control legislation. It is also his specific contention that the first respondent has failed to establish before the Tribunal that there had been any proper revision of rent. By the same reckoning, it has also failed to establish that the defendants are liable to pay the arrears of rent at the enhanced rate. According to him, the first respondent has placed no material before the Tribunal to drive home its contention as regards the revision of rent, much less the arrears of rent.

10. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has submitte