AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2025 IN WOA NO.89 OF 2024 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS (WAQF) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 26.05.2026, THE COURT ON 09.06.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The 1st respondent in W.O.A.No.89 of 2024 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 83(9) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 1995 (‘Waqf Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that W.O.A

2. Going by the averments in the W.O.A, the appellant is the tenant in the building bearing door No.CC 866 of Kannur Corporation. Claiming that the tenancy of the appellant has expired and he is in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the building, the respondents 2 and 3, who are the office bearers of the Wakf, viz., Camp Bazar Muhiyidheen Rifayi Shaduli approached the 1st respondent Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Wakf Board (the ‘Board’ for short) by filing a compliant under Section 54 of the Waqf Act. Based on the said complaint, the 1st respondent issued a notice under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act to the appellant to show cause as to why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment shall not be made and directing him to appear before the 1st respondent. The appellant appeared before the 1st respondent and contended that he paid the rent up to September 2020, and a huge amount was collected from the appellant by the office bearers of the Wakf. He further contended that the building is owned by Sulthan Aadiraja Amina of the Arakkal family, and the Wakf mentioned does not have any right over the property, except the right to collect rent. On enquiry, the 1st respondent found that the appellant is an encroacher in the wakf property and therefore filed W.O.A.No.89 of 2024 before the Tribunal under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, seeking an order of eviction.

2.1. The appellant filed a counter-statement before the Tribunal, maintaining the very same stand he had taken before the 1st respondent that the building is not a Wakf property and it still stands in the name of Sultan Aadiraja Aminabi. According to the appellant, only the right to collect rent of the building has been granted to the Camp Bazar Palli (Mosque) Sabha, and the Sabha accepted the rent till 31.07.2024. It is also contended by the appellant that the tenancy was not terminated since three notices as contemplated under Rule 24(2) of the Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014, have not been issued to the appellant. The authority of the 1st respondent to file the W.O.A. or initiate execution proceedings is also disputed by the appellant.

2.2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent produced Exts.A1 to A4 documents, and on the side of the appellant, his power of attorney holder was examined as RW1, apart from producing Exts.B1 to B5 documents. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, allowed W.O.A. and directed the appellant to vacate the subject building within 45 days from the date of affixture of the order on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the wakf property. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board. Considering the nature of the appeal, issuance of notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the contention of the appellant that the building wherein the appellant is doing business is not the Wakf property and the owner of the property is Sulthan Aadiraja Aminabi, and therefore the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to seek eviction of the appellant by filing the W.O.A. The learned counsel further submitted that the issuance of three consecutive notices as stipulated in Rule 24(2) of the Waqf Prope