Back
2019 Supreme(Telangana) 339
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
M/s. J.P. Estates Rep. by R. Jawahar – Petitioner
Versus
Mecca Madina Allauddin Waqf, Rep. by its Managing Trustee – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2432 of 2018
Decided On : 23-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Y. Chandrasekhar.
For the Respondents: Sri. M.V. Suresh Kumar, Sri. P. Venkaiah Naidu.
Headnote:
Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 83(9) – Constitution of India – Article 226 –Respondent claims Wakf. It filed O.S. III Additional Judge, alleging that one Col. its tenant, that plaint schedule property belongs to it and forms part of a Wakf by Wakf, which is said to under superintendence and control of A.P. Wakf Board, It alleged that monthly rent Rs. 250/- and Col. the allged tenant in suit property, willful defaulter in payment of rents and due a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards arrears of rent; that it had issued a legal notice him terminating tenancy and asked him to deliver vacant possession of same by, but he not do so, It prayed that he should evicted from plaint schedule property and a decree should be passed in favour of petitioner for Rs. 7,250/- comprising of rent also damages for use and occupation of said property valued – Held, vendor of 1st respondent had no title to plaint schedule property not taken note of by Wakf Tribunal and that it also ignored principle of law that 1st respondent should succeed on strength of its title and not on weakness of petitioners case, finding of Wakf Tribunal that Col. or his legal representatives tenants of 1st respondent or its predecessors in title is perverse, case made out by petitioners for interference with decision of Wakf Tribunal not only on ground of perversity, but also non-consideration of material evidence/misreading of evidence – Petition is allowed (Para 140, 142, 143, 144)
Facts of the case:
Respondent claims Wakf. It filed O.S. III Additional Judge, alleging that one Col. its tenant, that plaint schedule property belongs to it and forms part of a Wakf by Wakf, which is said to under superintendence and control of A.P. Wakf Board, It alleged that monthly rent Rs. 250/- and Col. the allged tenant in suit property, willful defaulter in payment of rents and due a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards arrears of rent; that it had issued a legal notice him terminating tenancy and asked him to deliver vacant possession of same by, but he not do so, It prayed that he should evicted from plaint schedule property and a decree should be passed in favour of petitioner for Rs. 7,250/- comprising of rent also damages for use and occupation of said property valued.
Findings of the court:
Vendor of 1st respondent had no title to plaint schedule property not taken note of by Wakf Tribunal and that it also ignored principle of law that 1st respondent should succeed on strength of its title and not on weakness of petitioners case, finding of Wakf Tribunal that Col. or his legal representatives tenants of 1st respondent or its predecessors in title is perverse, case made out by petitioners for interference with decision of Wakf Tribunal not only on ground of perversity, but also non-consideration of material evidence/misreading of evidence.
Result : petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. This Revision is filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 challenging the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in O.S. No. 24 of 1998 of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Wakf Tribunal’).
2. Earlier this order has been challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 7868 of 2007 and on 17.04.2007 in W.P.M.P. No. 10110 of 2007 interim suspension of the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal had been granted.
3. Ultimately, the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.03.2018 permitting the petitioners to file Revision under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 excluding the limitation as they had pursued the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. This Court also granted interim suspension of the order passed on 22.01.2007 in O.S. No. 24 of 1998 for a period of six weeks from 21.03.2018 and permitted the filing of the Revision within four weeks from that date.
4. On 11.04.2018 the present Revision has been filed by the petitioners.
5. In this Revision also, on 17.04.2018, interim suspension was granted of the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal on 22.01.2007, and that was continued.
6. Ultimately arguments in the matter were heard on 20.08.2019 and 21.08.2019 and orders were reserved.
Brief facts of the Case:
7. The plaint schedule property is a C-type Quarter No. 27 bearing Municipal No. 7-2-1778 admeasuring 2262.44 sq. yds situated at Allauddin Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad within specified boundaries.
O.S. No. 449 of 1976
8. The 1st respondent/plaintiff herein claims to be a Wakf. It filed O.S. No. 449 of 1976 before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad alleging that one Col. Waheed Khan was its tenant, that the plaint schedule property belongs to it and forms part of a Wakf by name Mecca Madina Allauddin Wakf, which is said to be under the superintendence and control of A.P. Wakf Board. It was alleged that monthly rent was Rs. 250/- and Col. Waheed Khan, the allged tenant in the suit property, was a willful defaulter in payment of rents and was due a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards arrears of rent by 31.08.1973; that it had issued a legal notice dated 29.07.1973 to him terminating the tenancy and asked him to deliver vacant possession of the same by 31.08.1973, but he did not do so. It prayed that he should be evicted from the plaint schedule property and a decree should be passed in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 7,250/- comprising of rent from 01.05.1973 up to 31.08.1973 and also damages for use and occupation of the said property from 01.09.1973 to 30.09.1975 valued at Rs. 6,250/-. Future mesne profits were also sought.
9. Written statement was filed by Col. Waheed Khan in O.S. No. 449 of 1976, taking the plea that the 1st respondent/plaintiff was not the owner of the plaint schedule property nor was he its tenant. He stated that there is no question of willful default in payment of rents and he is not liable to pay any amounts to the 1st respondent. He asserted that he was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and had been enjoying uninterrupted possession of the plaint schedule property right from 1953 and also perfected his title by adverse possession. He also asserted that the plaint schedule property is not Wakf property. He denied that the A.P. Wakf Board can make a claim to the plaint schedule property as a Wakf property and contended that the Chairman of the A.P. Wakf Board had no authority to give permission to the petitioner for filing the suit against him. He also denied that the property was the property of Iqbal Allauddin or Dost Mohammed Noor Mohammed Allauddin and that it was not declared and registered as Wakf property at all and cannot be said to be controlled and supervised by the A.P. Wakf Board.
10. Pending the suit, the sole defendant Col. Waheed Khan died on 28.10.1980.
11. On 21.01.1981, 1st respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 61 of 1981 to implead the legal representatives of the defendant.
12. On 04.12.1981, the said I.A. was d
