IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 161 of 2010 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.1.2010 IN WOS.26/2009 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): 1ST DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOUR FOODS HOTELS (P) LTD., C.C.28/3110, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.B.AMANULLA SMT.M.ISHA RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.HAJI ABDULLA HAJI ADAM SAIT CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT TRUST, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2 REP.BY ITS JOINT MANAGING TRUSTEE H.E.AHAMAD TAHIR SAIT, S/O.HAJI ESHAK ABDUL SATHAR SAIT, DOOR NO.IV A, CENTRAL ZONE APARTMENTS, AMMANKOVIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. 2. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.C.K.RAFEEK SRI.S.V.RAJAN R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN ADV.SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 162 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.Nos.161 of 2010 & 162 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2011 O R D E R K.M.Joseph, J. Since the parties are one and the same in both these Revision Petitions, we dispose of the Revision Petitions by this common order. 2. The Revision Petitions are filed under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act. Revision Petitioner is the Ist defendant in the W.O.S filed by the Ist respondent which is a Wakf claiming eviction. In other words, the revision petitioner is a tenant of the Ist respondent. The main contention of the revision petitioner appears to be that the Wakf Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The revision petitioner has got other contentions also. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the Ist respondent. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to our notice the decision of the Apex Court in Board of Wakf v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010 (4) KLT 765 (SC), wherein, it is pointed out that, the Court has distinguished the earlier ruling in Ramesh Gobindram CRP 161,162/2010 -2- v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010 (3) KLT 862 (SC). In Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010 (3) KLT 862 (SC) it is noted that eviction proceedings could be decided only by a Civil Court and not by the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore, the position which inevitably follows is that eviction proceedings as against a tenant is concerned it is to be laid not before the Wakf Tribunal but before the Civil Court. In this case, eviction has been ordered by the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore, the judgment is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Ist respondent does not dispute this proposition. In the light of this we set aside the impugned judgment and decree in both the Civil Revision Petitions and leave it open to the Ist respondent to proceed against the Revision Petitioner in the competent forum. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS