COMMON ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition in CRP.NPD.No.2389 of 2014 is directed as against the order passed in MP.No.288 of 2013 in RCOP.No.1127 of 2012 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 21.01.2014 thereby allowed the petition as RCOP is not maintainable filed by the petitioners herein. The petitioners are landlords in respect of the petition premises. They filed petition for fixation of fair rent. While pending the main petition, the first respondent filed petition to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of main RCOP as it is exempted from the provisions of Rent Control Act. The respondent contended that the petition premises is wakf property belonging to Madrase Bakhiyathus Salihat, a wakf bearing registration No.GS.No.423 under the supervisory control of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. While being so, the petitioners have purchased the said property under the sale deed dated 10.03.2011 and it is violation of Section 51 of Wakf Act, 1995 and as such the sale itself is void abinitio. It was allowed and the main petition itself is held as not maintainable before the Rent Controller.

2. M/s.Chitra Sampath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners having been purchased the petition premises by the registered sale deed dated 09.06.2011 vide document No.197 of 2011 registered in the Office of the District Registrar, Chennai North from the Madrase Bakhiyathus Salihat. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the petition premises is not a wakf property. The petitioners' vendor i.e. Madrase Bakhiyathus Salihat purchased the petition premises by the registered sale deed dated 10.03.2011 vide document No.88 of 2011 in the office of the District Registrar of Chennai North from Madrasai Niswan kHairatul Ehsan. In fact, they purchased the said property on 03.08.1909 vide document No.1235 of 1909 in the Office of the Registrar of North Madras from Official Assignee of Madras. Therefore, the petition premises is not a wakf property and it is categorically admitted by the respondent herein. Immediately after purchase of the said property, the respondent attorn the tenancy and recognized the petitioners as his landlord and paid rent to them. In fact, the respondent filed petition for depositing rents for the reason that the petitioners were not receiving the rents. When the respondent recognized the petitioners are landlord, they are estopped from his claim that the property itself belongs to wakf and the petition for fair rent is not maintainable. In fact, the respondent also filed petition for injunction when he was forcibly attempted to evict from the petition premises and in the said suit on undertaking that he would be lawfully evicted from the said premises came to be disposed of. Therefore, the respondent specifically and categorically admitted the fact that the petitioners are landlords of the petition premises. Under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, defines the landlord and the petitioners having been recognized as landlord by the respondent, they cannot question their title over their property. When the petitioners lawfully purchased or not, the respondent being a tenant cannot question the title over the petition premises. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Nisha Rani Mookherjee Vs. Puran Chand Jain reported in (2004) 10 SCC 637 (ii) S.Thangappan Vs. P.Padmavathy reported in (1999) 7 SCC 474 (iii) Ambica Prasad Vs. Mohd. Alam and Another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13

3. Per contra, Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 would submit that the respondents categorically stated that the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for fixation of fair rent since the petition itself is not maintainable as the property is a wakf property. The petitioners managed to register the sale deed in their favour in respect