IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 937 of 2004() --------------------- WOS.14/2002 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT: ------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O. VARKEY, ROOM NO.XIX/424, NOORJAMALIYA BUILDING, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANUR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.M.HARISHARMA RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- BYTHANUR JUMA-MASJID AND MADRASSA, ETTUMANUR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTHAVALLY, T.H. HUSSAINAR RAWTHER, S/O. T.A. HUSSAINAR RAWTHER, ETTUMANUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.2298/2004 IN CRP.937/2004 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 31.5.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- C.R.P. No.937 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Abdul Rehim,J. Defendant in the suit, W.O.S.No.14/2002 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam is in revision. The suit was filed under Section 83 of the Wakf Act seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/defendant from the plaint schedule building which belongs to the respondent/plaintiff, which is a registered Wakf. (The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant, hereinafter.) Allegation in the plaint is that the building in question is very old and cannot be put to more profitable use without making thorough repairs and renovation. Moreover, to provide more convenience to the believers who are attending prayers in the mosque it has become highly necessary to make some alterations in the existing building, which is situated very near to the Masjid. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the reason for eviction projected is false and vexatious. The title of the plaintiffs trust was also disputed. According to the CRP.937/04 2 defendant the room was taken on rent from late Sri.T.M.Mustafa Kani Rawther. It is also contended that the defendant had incurred various amounts for renovation, on the basis of oral agreement with the above said person. It is further contended that the defendant is paying rent to the above said person and there is absolutely no necessity to make alterations to the existing building. Further contention was that the income derived from business carried on in the building is the livelihood of the defendant's family and that he has no other room in the locality to shift the business. 2. On the basis of evidence adduced the Wakf Tribunal found that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is the present Muthavalli of the Wakf and he is the successor of late Hajee Mustafa Kani Rawther. It is also found that, since the demand in Ext.A3 notice for getting vacant possession of the building by the end of the tenancy month falling within 15 days after receipt of the said notice has not been complied with by defendant, the tenancy stands terminated. The Wakf Tribunal found that the expenditure which is alleged to have CRP.937/04 3 been incurred for renovating the building could not be taken note of, since there is no evidence to the effect that any consent or permission has been obtained from the plaintiff. Even if the defendant had incurred any such expenditure, it is found that there is no agreement to pay back such amount. Since it is found that the tenancy has been properly terminated, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction. Accordingly the suit is decreed and the defendant was ordered to surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises within one month. Further the plaintiff was also allowed to realise damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per month with interest, from February, 2002 onwards, towards charges for use and occupation of building. 3. Several grounds have been raised assailing the impugned judgment. Sri.M.Hari Sharma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner had advanced arguments based on those grounds. But on a scanning of the impugned judgment we realise that the findings arrived therein has got support of evidence based on the factual contentions. Under the revisional power we are not expected to enter upon any re- CRP.937/04 4 appraisal of the evidence. No material has been placed before us to show that there is any omission or rather material mis-appreciation in evaluating the evidence. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety with respect to the judgment impugned. Accordingly the revision petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Sri.M.Hari Sharma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a last submission appealing to the conscience of this court, requesting to grant reasonable time for surrendering the tenanted premises. Sri. P.C. Chacko, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is only just and proper to grant reasonable time to the revision petitioner to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises. 5. Accordingly, while dismissing the revision petition, the revision petitioner/defendant is allowed time till 31.9.2010 for surrendering peaceful and vacant possession of the plaint schedule building to the respondent/plaintiff. It is made clear that the executing court will be at liberty to order CRP.937/04 5 delivery of possession in case of any default in surrendering the building as directed above. 6. It is further made clear that the revision petitioner will be liable for depositing the amount of damages ordered under the impugned decree, and if any such deposit is made the same shall be released to the respondent/plaintiff forthwith. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb