The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 56 of the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995, and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in determining the validity of the lease and the notice of termination, respectively.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This is defendants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2002. passed by the learned lower appellate court, vide which the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/respondent stands decreed.

2. The plaintiff Wakf Board filed a suit for possession on the pleadings that the plaintiff was a body corporate and Mohammed Sadiqui being Estate Officer/Principal Officer and being duly authorized to file and verify the pleadings, was competent to file the present suit.

3. The Wakf Board claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property shown in the site plan, as also of superstructure constructed over the suit property. Father of defendant No.2, Ram Murti son of Amin Chand was a licensee in possession of the suit land measuring 450 square yards. After the expiry of licence, defendant No.2 applied for lease of plot in the name of M/s Ram Murti & Sons. The application was accepted and he was given the property on lease w.e.f. 1.1.1978 at the rate of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per month Lessee constructed seven shops, and sublet the major portion in unauthorized manner, to defendants No.3 to 9 without permission from the Board.

4. It was claimed that the defendants violated the terms of the lease which resulted in termination of the lease. It was also the case set up by the plaintiff/respondent that defendants No.l and 2 were liable to vacate the premises, and hand over the possession as they had no right to sublet. It was pleaded that the defendant/appellants have damaged the property whereby the value and utility of the leased property, has been diminished. It was also the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that the claim of the appellant/defendants, that they were lessee in terms of the lease dated 5.1.1980, was not sustainable,, as the lease deed was the outcome of fraud and foul play. The Board denied having executed any lease deed in favour of defendants No.l and 2.The lease deed was said to be illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The relief claimed was for possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants No. 3 to 9 from paying rent to defendants No. 1 and 2.

5. Suit was contested by defendants No.l and 2, wherein stand was taken, that the suit was not filed by a competent person as Mohmmad Sadiqui was not authorized to file or verify the pleadings. The ownership of wakf board was admitted. It was the stand of the defendant/appellants, that the construction was raised by. the defendants, on the property leased out by the Board, which was given on lease at the rate of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) with a permission to raise construction. It was also the case of the defendants that after raising construction, defendants No.l and 2 sublet the shops constructed by them. It was further the case of the defendants, that after permitting the defendants to raise construction, the rent was increased from Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) to Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only), which was paid by the defendants till 1985. The stand of the defendants was, that no permission was required to lease out the shop constructed by the defendant/appellants, as at the time of allowing the construction, permission to sublet was granted. Lease deed dated 5.1.1980 was claimed to be genuine document, sanctity of which stood decided in the earlier proceedings. The officials of the Board had deposed admitting lease, to have been issued by the Board, and the Board was receiving the rent, under the said lease.

6. Defendants No.3 to 9 were said to be tenants under defendants No.l and 2. Other material averments were also denied.

7. Defendant No.4, filed a separate written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff. Stand of defendant No.4 was that defendants No. 1 and 2 by misrepresenting their right to sublet, leased out the property to him, though they had no such right. Defendant No.4 claimed to be the tenant under the plaintiff Board an