IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 392 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2011 IN IA 194/2011 IN OS.17/2011 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AYOOB A., NASEENA MANZIL, VALIYAVAYAL, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA) PACHA PALODE, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BADARUDEEN A., SHAMEER MANZIL, BLOCK NO.410, VATTAKARIKKAKAM PO, (VIA) PACHA PALODE, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NAZAR MAULAVI, M.K.MANZIL, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA) PACHA PALODE, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SHIHABUDEEN, ROSE VIHAR, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA) PACHA PALODE, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF SRI.SUNIL PETER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SALAHUDEEN, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, VALIYA VAYAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA)PACHA PALODE, CHITHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 562. 2. PRESIDENT, VALIYA VAYAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, SALAHUDEEN, AGED 65 YEARS, ZEENATHU MANZIL, KAIPPATTA, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA)PACHA PALODE, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-695 562. CRP.No. 392 of 2011 -2- 3. SECRETARY, VALIYA VAYAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, SHAJUDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, CHALIL VEEDU, VATTAKARIKKAKAM P.O., (VIA)PACHA PALODE, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.-695 562. 4. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (SECRETARY), PARAMARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.392 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of August, 2011 O R D E R K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act challenging the order in I.A.No.194/2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. Petitioners are the respondents in the I.A filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein. In the order the Tribunal has granted the following relief. “In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained by a temporary injunction from causing any obstruction to the conduct of the day today affairs of the first petitioner Jama-ath by the administrative committee headed by petitioners 2 and 3 and from convening the general body meeting of the first petitioner Jama-ath and implementing the decisions taken by the administrative committee till the disposal of the suit. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.” 2. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs was that the Ist respondent Jama-ath is a Wakf and respondents 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein were the former President and Secretary of the Jama-ath. In the General Body meeting held on 28.1.2011, election of the new committee members of the Ist respondent Jama-ath was conducted and 11 CRP 392/2011 -2- committee members including respondents 2 and 3 were elected for a period of two years. It is stated that a decision was taken by the administrative committee to renew the rental arrangement with respect to the building of the Jama-ath occupied by petitioners herein as tenants and to recover arrears of rent. Petitioners herein caused obstruction to the conduct of the day today affairs of the Jama-ath and from implementing the decision taken by the administrative committee. Hence, the suit and the interlocutory application. 3. Petitioners herein filed objection contending inter alia as follows: The administrative committee refused to accept rent from March 2011. No notice was given demanding arrears of rent. Respondents 2 and 3 are not the present office bearers of Ist respondent Jama-ath. They were elected as Secretary and President of the Ist respondent Jama-ath. Majority of the members of the Jama-ath expressed their displeasure in the functioning of the present committee members in the General Body meeting held on 1.7.2011. Respondents 2 and 3 are not the present office bearers of the Ist respondent Jama-ath. They have no prima facie case. 4. The Tribunal, after perusal of the documents which were produced before it referred to the decision recorded in Page No.205 of Ext.A1. It is found that the new administrative CRP 392/2011 -3- committee was elected on 28.1.2011. Records were handed over to the present administrative committee by the earlier committee. The Tribunal also noted the decision in Ext.A1 of the present committee to renew the rent and to recover arrears. It is found that admittedly the petitioners 1 and 4 are the tenants of the building. Prima facie it is found that the present administrative committee took decision to renew the rent and decision was taken to evict the tenants from the building as they committed default in making payment of rent, caused obstruction to the administration of day today affairs of the Ist respondent Jama-ath. It is inter alia noted that there is no pre-condition regarding registration of Wakf to approach the Wakf Tribunal. Noting that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience, relief was granted. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and also learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that, in fact, a confidence motion was moved and it was carried and there was no locus standi for the respondents 2 and 3 to represent the committee and the Tribunal has not considered this matter. He voices the apprehension that in the light of the interim order passed by the Tribunal that petitioners are prevented from interfering with the decision of the administrative committee and CRP 392/2011 -4- the decision of the administrative committee being to evict the petitioners on account of non-payment of rent they will be forcibly evicted. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would point out that respondents 1 to 3 are continuing on the basis of their being elected in January, 2011. There was a decision taken to demand arrears and there was default in payment of arrears. He specifically states before us that under the guise of this administrative decision petitioners will not be evicted except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners then point out that it may be made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the petitioners moving a no-confidence motion against the office bearers. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that if the provision/law enables it can be made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the petitioners moving a no-confidence motion. In the light of this submission, we dispose of the Civil Revision Petition as follows: 1) We affirm the order of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. 2) We make it clear that when the matter is finally disposed of, the Tribunal will decide it totally untrammelled by any observations which is made in the order. 3) We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that respondents 1 to 3 will not evict CRP 392/2011 -5- petitioners who are admittedly the tenants except in accordance with law. We further make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners, if they are so advised, to make a no-confidence motion. But, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding its maintainability and if they make such a no- confidence motion the effect of any such no-confidence motion will necessarily be decided in accordance with the provisions of the byelaw/law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS