JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 30.07.2021 in O.A.Nos.108, 109, 111, 115 & 116 of 2018 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 30.07.2021 in O.A.Nos.108, 109, 111, 115 & 116 of 2018 passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai.

2. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

3. The revision petitioners herein are tenants and the 1st respondent herein is landlord in O.A.Nos.108, 109, 111, 115 & 116 of 2018.

4(i). The case of the 1st respondent herein/petitioner is that the revisions petitioners herein are tenants in respect of the petition mentioned properties which belongs to the Jumma Periya Pallivasal Waqf, Batlagundu Town, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District in which they were carrying business for the past few years. An earlier, eviction proceedings were initiated against the revision petitioners herein ended in an amicable settlement. Thereafter, rent was not enhanced for the years 2011 – 2016 as it was usually being done once in three years. When the 1st respondent demanded to enhance the rent with effect from April 2017 and also requested the revision petitioners to enter into a fresh agreement, they refused and challenged the authority of the 1st respondent herein and defaulted to pay the monthly rent. The lease agreement expired on 31.03.2017 and the revision petitioners are only an encroacher of the tenement thereafter.

4(ii). After issuance of the notice of termination, the revision petitioners with malafide intention have filed a petition seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court. The revision petitioners herein alleged that there was a rival claim by one Mr.A.Naser Mohammed and hence they were unable to pay the rents. The said allegations are only a concocted story. Having attorned the tenancy in favour of the 1st respondent hand having paid the monthly rents upto March 2017, the revision petitioners have failed to renew the lease agreement and hence they are estopped from denying the title of the 1st respondent herein or allege rival claim in respect of the demised shop.

4(iii). The revision petitioners are liable to pay the enhanced rent from April 2017 to July 2017 and the tenancy was also terminated by the 1st respondent herein through his notice, dated 01.08.2017 calling upon the revision petitioners to deliver possession.

5. The revisions petitioners/1st respondent have stated that the 1st respondent is not the recognized President of the Waqf in question and according to the writ proceedings ordered by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the SLP No.21833 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court election for the administration of the Waqf in question has not taken place till date. Hence the 1st respondent has no locus standi to file this application. The revision petitioners are tenants in respect of the petition mentioned shops belonging to the Waqf and they have paid the monthly rent till March 2017. One Mr.A.Naser Mohammed claimed himself to be elected as President of the administrative committee sent a notice dated 10.05.2017 claiming rent. But the election of both Abdul Rahman and A.Naser Mohamed has not been recognized by the Tamilnadu Waqf Board. Since there was rival claim as stated supra, this respondent filed an application to deposit the rent into court and has deposited the rent from April 2017 till date.

6. The 2nd respondent/2nd respondent has filed its counter and stated that the Waqf in question is under the supervision an control of the Tamilnadu Waqf Board under Section 32(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995. On 27.02.2019, the 1st respondent herein has been appointed as President of the said Waqf.

7. The first issue is whether the 1st respondent/petitioner has power to file O.A., to evict the Revision petitioners?

8. The Wak