Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2227
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
K.G. Jilendran - Petitioner
Vs.
Mohideen Andavar Dharga and Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.27, 895 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007
Decided On : 03-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. J. Anandhavalli
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Arumugam, M/s. Ajmal Associates, Mr. K.K. Senthil
Headnote:
Civil Law – Wakf property – Mosque - Petition Schedule property has been purchased by the petitioners from the predecessors-in-title by way of two separate sale deeds, for the benefit of the petitioners Mosque and the petitioners Mosque is a religious institution in Madurai and the first respondent is a tenant in respect of the property having been inducted as a tenant by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the monthly rent is Rs.550/- payable on or before 5th of succeeding English calendar month. The petitioners have purchased the property with a view to extend the building for the benefit of the petitioners Mosque – Held, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the issues involved in the matter even with reference to the eviction of the tenant or the determination of the rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee of the property in dispute under the Act. Therefore, it is seen that inasmuch as the lis has not come to a finality and it is at the stage of the revision before this Court and meanwhile the Act having been amended and when it is found that the tenancy issue could also be sorted out by the Wakf Tribunal as per the amendment introduced in the Act, it is seen that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the lis. In this connection the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 381 [Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust vs. Magnum Developers] has held that by virtue of the amendment, the composition of the Tribunal has been enlarged and further, it has also been duly held that the amendment has been introduced only for making improvements in the functioning of the Tribunal with the help of the two more members in the Tribunal and further, it has also been held that till the Tribunal as contemplated under the amendment is constituted, one member Tribunal will continue to exercise the jurisdiction as done at present and so holding it has held that the one member Tribunal exercising jurisdiction shall not cease to exist even though the new Tribunal as contemplated under the Amendment Act has not been constituted by the Government- first respondent claiming only the tenancy right and when it is found that the petitioners Mosque have title to the property and the first respondent also had not evinced any interest to pay the rent to the petitioners Mosque since the date of purchase by the petitioners Mosque, it is found that the petitioners Mosque had duly and validly determined the tenancy of the first respondent and accordingly, laid the suit for recovery of possession.- property involved in the lis belonged to the petitioners Mosque and I further hold that the petitioners Mosque is entitled to recover the possession of the property from the first respondent and also entitled to claim the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.550/- from the date of purchase till the end of December, 1990 and accordingly, Point Nos.I to III are answered in favour of the petitioners Mosque.- Civil revision petitions are dismissed
1. Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 09.09.2005, passed in W.O.P.No.12 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai (Wakf Tribunal), the civil revision petitions have been preferred.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the waqf original petition.
3. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated as follows:
3.1. The petition Schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as “the property”) has been purchased by the petitioners from the predecessors-in-title by way of two separate sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and the petitioners' Mosque is a religious institution in Madurai and the first respondent is a tenant in respect of the property having been inducted as a tenant by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the monthly rent is Rs.550/- payable on or before 5th of succeeding English calendar month. The petitioners have purchased the property with a view to extend the building for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque. The first respondent has been attempting to purchase the property from the vendors of the petitioners' Mosque for his own benefit. However, the petitioners' Mosque have purchased the property. Further, inasmuch as the petitioners' Mosque purchased the same, the first respondent got disappointed and thereby decided to give pinpricks to the petitioners' Mosque and the first respondent filed a rent control original petition in R.C.O.P.No.219 of 1990 for depositing the rent into the Court and the same is pending. The Rent Control Act is not applicable to the petitioners' Mosque and as such the first respondent is liable to pay the rent from 28.03.1990 till the end of December, 1990, amounting to Rs.7,150/- and also damages for the use and occupation from January, 1991. The petitioners' Mosque decided to demolish the existing superstructure and erect a new construction annexing with the existing Mosque building. The first respondent is estopped in law from disputing the rights of the petitioners' Mosque and therefore, they sent a notice, on 25.11.1990, terminating the tenancy of the first respondent directing him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property on the expiry of December, 1990. To the same, the first respondent sent a reply, dated 12.12.1990, containing false and vexatious allegations. Hence, the waqf original petition.
3.2. Originally, the waqf original petition was filed as a suit, in O.S.No.1842 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, and after coming into effect of the Waqf Act, the above said suit was transferred to the file of the Principal Sub Court (Wakf Tribunal), Madurai and it was re-numbered as W.O.P.No.12 of 2000. The petitioners having been elected as the Managers of the petitioners' Mosque, they have been substituted in the name of the erstwhile Managers (Trustees). Inasmuch as the second respondent - Waqf Board is a necessary party to the proceedings, where the waqf property is involved, it has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings.
4. The averments contained in the written statement filed by the first respondent are briefly stated as follows:
4.1. The waqf original petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The property is a private Trust property belonging to one Malli Nagalakshmi Ammal and she had executed a registered Will, dated 11.06.1972, creating a Trust called “Malli Gurumurthi Trust” and her sons are the Trustees of the said Trust and they have no power to alienate the property and they have to perform the Trust from and out of the income derived from the property. The Trustees have not obtained permission from the Court to sell the property. The petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property. The first respondent has been inducted as a tenant in the property on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- and the tenancy is as per the English Calendar month. The rent was subsequ
