1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2048/2009. : : Jugal Kishore Saini & Anr. Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim Jamil & Ors. : : Date of Order 15.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 30.6.2001 passed by Estate Officer, Wakf, Jaipur and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Estate Officer and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that wakf property in question as per the survey report would clearly measuring upto 300 square yard and odd whereas the respondent was claiming much larger land covered thereby. It was contended that Tribunal erred in law in not 2 appreciating that the burden of proof to show that the property was a wakf property, was on the respondent and not on the petitioner. Merely because the rent deed was executed by father of petitioner at one point of time on 5.1.1971. The petitioner could not be treated as trespasser and that he could not be treated as tenant of the respondent. It was submitted that notice for determination of tenancy was served upon the petitioner on 10.1.1977 whereas the suit was filed in 1971. The suit was, therefore, incompetence. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders especially the order passed by the Tribunal, I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. 5. Perusal of written statement/reply filed by petitioner clearly show that he admitted that his father took possession of the property in question from the respondent as tenant and was regularly paying the rent. The Tribunal has also on analysis of the entire evidence found that initially when this property was given on rent to father of the petitioner somewhere about 1959-60 he used to pay rent @ Rs.4/- per month, which rent was increased to Rs.10/- per 3 month in 1965 and Rs.14/- per month in 1971. When the respondents demanded further increase the payment of rent was stopped. In fact the petitioner claimed the adverse possession, which was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that there are, apart from petitioner, 14 other tenants also in property in question and all are admitting the respondent as their landlord and were paying the rent regularly. Petitioner having accepted that property in question came in possession of his predecessor in title, i.e. his father by virtue of rent note, cannot now question of authority of landlord itself i.e. the respondent. The Tribunal, in my view rightly dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. The order of dismissing appeal does not suffer any such legal infirmity may be described apparent on the face of record warranting interference by this Court. In case, the petitioner submits an undertaking before the Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur that he would vacant the property and hand over the possession thereof on or before 15th July, 2009 and deposits the entire outstanding together rent with interest @ 6% per annum with users charges @ Rs.500/- for these three months, execution of the impugned order shall not be made till that time. In case however, the petitioner fails to file such undertaking or deposit the said 4 amount within fortnight from today, liberty granted by this order would not available to him. This writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid directions. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.30.