IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO : 269 of 1996 (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree dated 30/12/1992 in OS No. 1179 of 1984 on the file of the Court of I ASST.JUDGE (JR.CIVIL JUDGE), CCC, SECUNDERABAD preferred against the decree dated 31/08/1995 in AS No. 10 of 1993 on the file of the court of III Additional Judge (Senior Civil Judge), CCC, Secunderabad) Between: A.S.Abdul Khader Wakf, Rep. Mutawalli MAsood Abdul Khader, S/o. Late A.S.Abdul Khader. R/o.2-4-27, M.G.Raod, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND Dr.Syed Ghulam Samdani, S/o. S.Hyder. R/o. 2-3-108, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- PSR, J S.A.No. 269 of 1996 Judgment This second appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in A.S.No. 10 of 1993, which was preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No. 1179 of 1984. 2. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for recovery of possession of the schedule premises from the defendant/respondent and for recovery of Rs.1,800-00 as mesne profits as damages for use and occupation of the schedule premises from 1.11.1983 till the date of recovery of possession etc. (for the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court) 3. The plaintiff is a Wakf made by late A.S.AbdulKhader for religious and educational purposes. It was created about forty years back. It is registered as a Wakf in the A.P. Wakf Board since 1983. Four sons of late A.S. Abdul Khader are Muthawallis of the Wakf and one Masood Abdul Khader is the managing Muthawalli. The defendant is a tenant of the plaint schedule premises bearing No.2-3- 108, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad on a monthly rent of Rs.40-00. The tenancy was oral. A notice was issued on 5.10.1983 on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the tenancy. But the defendant failed to deliver the possession. Hence the suit. 4. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff is not a Wakf and Masood Abdul Khder has no right to be the managing Muthawalli of the Wakf. The appointment of Masood Abdul khader is against the wishes of late A.S.Abdul Khader. The defendant is the tenant of the schedule premises; it does not belong to Abdul Khader Wakf; that the premises is a Wakf created by A.S.Abdul Khader for Zia-Ul-Islam School and the defendant is the tenant of Wakf created for Zia-Ul-Islam School, even prior to the creation of the plaintiff Wakf. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; as such the tenancy is not determined in accordance with Law. The defendant is not bound to vacate the premises. He paid the rents upto 31.10.1983. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover any sum from the defendant towards mesne profits. The plaintiff has no right to sue him. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the trial court and evidence was adduced by the plaintiff by examining PW-1 and marking Exs A-1 to A-4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant. Basing on the said evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.10 of 1993 and the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, under the impugned judgment allowed the appeal, by dismissing the suit and as against the same the present second appeal is filed, as referred to above. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to my notice that a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Abdul Khader Wakf v. Saber miah and batch[1] considered the subject mater of the same Wakf pertaining to other tenants and allowed the second appeals, decreeing the suit by restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court. Thus, the subject mater of this second appeal is fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above and as such the present second appeal is also liable to be allowed. 8. In the result the second appeal is allowed with costs. The respondent is granted a month’s time to vacate the premises. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. October 12, 2009. *BVS [1] SA.Nos.254, 256, 257, 258,259 and 719 of 1995 dated:23.07.2003