Civil Revision No. 5438 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5438 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.2.2010 Haryana Wakf Board and another .. Petitioners v. Ram Bahteri Devi and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009, passed by the Tribunal, constituted under the Wakf Act, whereby the suit filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff for possession was dismissed, though the petitioners were directed to refund the amount paid by respondent No. 1-plaintiff along with interest @ 9% per annum. In the present case, the property in question was leased out to respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1.5.2006. Though the rent was regularly recovered from respondent No. 1, but possession of the property was never delivered. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for possession and recovery of mesne profits from respondent No. 2-defendant No. 3, who in fact remained in possession of the property during all this period. Considering the undisputed facts on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the suit for possession finding that respondent No. 1 did not have any right to get possession of the property, as the period for which the property was leased out, had expired, but directed the petitioners to refund the amount recovered from respondent No. 1-plaintiff along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till realisation on account of the mis-chief played by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only grievance in the present petition is against the adverse comments recorded by the learned court below against the officers of the Wakf Board. In fact, there was no mala fide. In the suit filed, no relief regarding recovery of mesne profits had been made against the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any Civil Revision No. 5438 of 2009 [2] merit in the present petition, rather, the same is totally misconceived. It is a case in which the property in question was leased out to respondent No. 1-plaintiff w.e.f. 1.5.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-, initially for a period of 11 months, which was further renewable. However, though the petitioners continued to get the lease money from respondent No. 1-plaintiff, but possession of the property was never delivered. It is in this suit that the learned court below while rejecting the prayer for possession decreed the same only to the extent that the petitioners were directed to refund the amount of money recovered from respondent No. 1-plaintiff along with interest. If under these circumstances, without realising the fact that the property, which was sought to be leased out to respondent No. 1-plaintiff was not even in possession of the petitioners or the petitioners will not be able to get the possession delivered to the new lessee from the person, who was already in possession thereof, the property in question is leased out and even the lease money is recovered therefor, in my opinion, even the adverse comments recorded by the learned court below do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.2.2010 mk