Civil Revision No.3585 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3585 of 2009 Date of Order: 03.07.2009 Gurcharan Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.I.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners challenge an order dated 01.04.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, exercising the powers of a Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995, decreeing the suit for possession by way of ejectment filed by the respondent-Board. The Punjab Wakf Board, respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs.6 lacs as compensation by alleging that Harsha Singh petitioner (now represented by his legal respresentatives) is in unauthorised occupation. Harsha Singh was granted a lease for the years 1999-2000, at the rate of Rs.29400/- per annum. After expiry of the lease, he did not surrender possession. In opposition to the aforementioned suit, the petitioners pleaded that Harsha Singh continued to deposit rent and, therefore, even if the lease deed had expired, the acceptance of rent by the functionaries of the Wakf Board would render his possession legal. After considering the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession Civil Revision No.3585 of 2009 -2- through ejectment of the present defendant from the suit land?OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.6 lacs as compensation on account of illegal use and occupation of the suit land?OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and on what amount?OPP (4) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee?OPP (5) Whether the suit is maintainable?OPP (6) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata?OPD (6-A) Whether the suit is within the limitation?OPP (6-B) Whether the defendant is entitled to recover Rs.1,45,000/- with upto date interest or in the alternative adjusting the same from the amount already held to be lying with the plaintiff as alleged in the counter claim?OPD (6-C) Whether the defendant is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as alleged in the counter claim?OPD (7) Relief.” Upon appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the Tribunal held as a matter of fact that after the expiry of lease deed in 1999, Harsha Singh became an unauthorised Civil Revision No.3585 of 2009 -3- occupant and the mere fact that he deposited some amount with the Wakf Board, would not entitle them to claim legitimate possession or perpetuate his unauthorised occupation. Counsel for the petitioners submits that it has been held in a separate civil suit that the petitioners have been paying rent regularly. However, this suit was dismissed for failure to serve an advance notice, as prescribed by Section 89 of the Wakf Act. It is prayed that in view of the finding recorded in the earlier suit, the petitioners would have to be held to be tenants and, therefore, the suit filed by the Wakf Board should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment and express my inability to accede to the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that vide Ex.D1, land measuring 50 Kanals was leased out to Harsha Singh for the years 1998-99. Ex.D16 is the kabuliatnam accepting the lease for the years 1998-99. After the expiry of the lease period, no fresh lease deed or kabuliatnama was executed by the Wakf Board or by Harsha Singh. The mere deposit of some amount towards rent would not revive the tenancy that had come to an end by efflux of time. Harsha Singh and thereafter the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the land as they have failed to produce any lease deed or Kabuliatnama in support of the plea that they continue in occupation as tenants of the suit land . The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law as would require interference. No merit. Dismissed. July 03, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE