70 r0 4 CR No 5570 0f 2007 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No 5570 of2007 DateofDecision 1 Deccmber2l 2009 1 Balwinder Singh Petit ioner Versus 0 C Haryana Wakf Board Ambala Cantt I Respondent C5 I CORAM 2 HONBLE MR JUSTICE VINOD K SHAIA Present l Mr Anil KshetarpalAdvocate Z for thepetitioner r Mr GS Sandhawalia Advocate for the 83k8 08 r VINOD Ke SHARMA Je 7 Z The plaintiffI HaryanaWakf Boaro Anlbala cantl lllcd a suit for byway of ejectment on thepleadlngsthat it was a Corporate bodyandits Board had authorizedthe Estate Ofcer Kurukshetra to fll e thesuit againstthe defendantl petitioner It was pleaded that the plaintiffl ulas the owner of the suit Iand which was Ieasedto thepetitionertill 199394 The petitioner thereafierdid not applyfor its renewal althoughne was in cultivating possessionof the suit land and derivingthe benelits of its use and The possessionof the petitionerwas stated tco bc illcgal and unauthorized Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 0 4 CeR No 5570of2007 2 lt was also thepleaded case thatthe defendantl petitionerhad not paidthe mesne profltof the land Rs 6351eper Kanal per annum which was approved 1sanctionedrate for agricultural Iand The petitionerdid not accept the rcquestof the plaintiff1 1 to get the leaserenewed andpay the mesne pro6tsThe plaintiff 0 prayed a decree for by way ojectment frOm the land along C with the decree for recovery of Rs 640001 07upeesixtyfour thousand I C5 onlylas inesne profitsfiom 199495 alongwith futuremesne profitstill the I deliveryofpossession Z The suit was contested wherein a preliminaryobjectionwas r takenthat the suit was not maintainablein the present forln and that the I Tribunal had no jurisdictionto entertain and try the suit The suit was said 08 to be barredunder Section 25 of thc PunjabSecurityof Land TenuresAct and was barred by resjudicataThe pleaof concealment of material facts 7 Z was also taken It was pleadedby the petitioner that he was the tenant under thePunjabWakfBoard since 199192 Rs 1 0001 Rupeestone thousand onlyl per annum as rent The rent was paidto the PunjabWakf Board from the years 199293 to 199384 vide receiptNo 85037 The PurljabWakf Board e an applicationuilder Seclion 14AOTI Fonn L againstthe petitioner for his in the Coun of Assistalll Collector Ist Grade Kurukshetra wherein relalionship of Iandlord 81101 tenant was admitted The petitioner deposited a suill of Rs 30001 1Rupces three thousandonlyl and the application of the PunjabWakf Board for Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 0 4r CeReNoe 5570 of2007 3 electmentwas dismissed bythe Assistant Collector lst Grade Kurukshetra vidc order dated27 12004 No appealwas ffled againstthe order passedby Iearned Assistant Collector nor anypetitionfor enhancementof the rent was Oled m r lt was assertedthat the rate of rent was Rs 1000 I Rupeesone thousand 0 onlyl per annu The petitionerthereafterdeposited asum of Rs 60001 C Rupees SlX thousand only l towards rent for six years in the Court on I C5 2022004 I he case ofthe petitioner was thal hc approached the plaintilrl Z respondent for depositof rent foi the vear 2005406 but the officials of the r plaintiffl demandedRs 50001 Rupeestlve thousandonly 1Ias I bribe money on his failure to accept this demand the plaintiffdid not 08 receive lle rent The petitioner showed his readinesstt depositthc rellt Olll thevear 2004 to 2007 in the Court 7 Z On merits it was pleadedthat the petitioner was inducted as Ll tenantbythe PunjabWakfBoard in the year 199192 Oll payment ofrent O Rs 1000 Rupeesone thousand onlylper annum Kabuliatllama wasnota registereddocument therefore could noi be read in evidence The documentwas said to be a document It was pleadedthat thc plaintifflrespondenthad no cause of action to 0lc the present suit for and recovery ofmesne prolits On thepleadings ofthe partiesthe learnedTribunal franledthe followingissues le Whether leuse of the defendanlquc7 Sllll Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 so 0 1 ee CR No 5570 of2007 4 propertystands determined as alleged 2 OPP 2 I7intilT lS entiled to nlesne profit in respectofsuilproperto7us alleged2 OPP 3 Whether suit is nl9t mc1ii7tainableln lts 1 OPD 4 This Tribunal has nojurisdictionto try and 0 entertaln thepresentsuit2 OPD C 5 Whethersuit is barred under Section 25 of I C5 the PunIabSecurityof Land TenziresAct7 OPD 6 Whetherthesuit is barred under Section l l Z ofCPC2 OPD 7 Whether pluintilfhas concealed Ihe true r and mawictl I2Icts this Tribunal7 I OPD C45 8 Relic r Both the partiesled evidence W2 Z lssues No 62 2 were taken up togetherOn of evidence th2 learned Tribunal recorded a findingthat the PunjabWakf Board was the owner of the suit land which was a corporatebody constltutedunder the Wakf Act Iike other bodiescreatcd under the slatute The Iandheld by plaintiffwas said to bc not eovernedunder the Provisions of the PunjabSecurityof Land Tenures Act as the tenant had no rightl0 purchase it bytreating it to be surplusland The learned Tribunal further held thal under Sectlon 83 of lhe WakfAct 1995 all disputes wlere to be decidedby thc Tribunal which W31S constituted vide notification dated 252001 The decision of Assislallt Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 51 0 e CR No 5570 of 2007 5 Collector Ist Grade Kurukshelra was said to be nullity therefore not binding on plaintifflrespondent The IearnedTribunal also to held that the Wakf Board being owner of the propertywas to lease the imlnovable propertyof j r Wakfunder Section 32021and Section 56 ofthe Act 0 The Act was held to be special Act to deal with Wakf or Wakf C therefore the provisions of the PunjabSecurityof Land Tcnures I C5 Act or Punjab TenancyAct were held to be not applicable to dispute I relatlng to the suitsqua the propertyof Wakf Board lhe IearnedTribunal Z further held that the lease stood determined after 19994 therefore petitioner could be ejectedby a suit for possession I The IearnedTribunal also relied upon Section 21 of the Punjab 08 Security 0fLand Tenures Act to hold that theprovisionsofthc Act were not to the case The learnedTrlbunal relied upon thejudgmentoftllis 7 Z Coui1 in the case of Chanan Singh Vs MunicipalCommitteeRunia and C others 1996 PLJ 254 to hold that the Iesseeafter determinationof Ieascbv J affluxof time becolnes unauthorizedoccupant which giveslocus standi to lessorto file a suit Reliarlce was also placed on the judgnlentsofthis Coult in the case of Puiab State Eleciciol Bolwd K Stute Plmjab2003 1Supp 394B9 and Chundu Vs StateofHuryanaand olhers 1994 PLJ 40010 passthe decreeofor in favour ofpiaintiff The learned Tribunal litriher held that in view 49fthc iand Iaid dtlWll bythe Honble SupremeCotirt in the case of R V Bhupal Vs Stiite Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 5 0 0 WP CJ2 No 5570 of2007 6 of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1996 SupremeCourt 140 the of a tenant at sufferance is not lawful The Honble Suprelnc Court in the referred case held that therewas little difference betweensuch tenant and a trespasserThe of such tenant was protected only r till he was evicted in due course of Iaw 0 The learned Tribunal therefore held that the petitionfor C under Section 83 of the Wakf Act was competentThe pleaof C5 res judicatawas declinedon the groundthat the before the I Assistant Collector Ist Grade Kurukshetra were of sumlnaty nature Z therefore provisionsof Section l l of the Code of civil Procedure Ivere not r applicablc Z The learnedTribunal was furtherpleased to hold thal the order 08 passedby the Assistant Collector lst Grade Kurukshetra Ex D 0 was Cn principleoftesjudicatawerenot applicable 7 Z The learned Tribunal for the reasons stated decide issues No1 8 2 in 0m favour of the plaintiff I respondentand held that the tenancy of the petitioner was terlninatedby noticesEx P6 and Pw7 The iearned Tribunal also held Lllatthe respondent 1plaintiflwas cntltled 10 recover inesile pro ts 0 Rs 6351oer Kanal per annum lssues No 3 to 7 were also decided againstthe petitioner i tl Vlew of the findirigsOll 1SSUCS No 1 8e 2 whercin thc objcclorisraisea by thepetitioner Ivere also dealt wlithin detail The IearnedTribunal thereforc passedthc decree for alongwith recoverv of Rs 640001 e1 Rupeessixtyfour thousandonly as inesne profits Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 0 3 5 1en CR No 5570 of2007 7 A4r Anil Kshetarpallearned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitionerchallenged thejurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertainand try the suit by referring to Article 246 of the Constitution of lndia which providcs that lhe Parliainent hascxclusive power to inakc laws with respecl 1 lo any of the matters enumerates in List I in the Seventh Schedule ie the Union List and with respectto the matters shown in the List4l I in the 0 C SeventhScheduleie the concurrent list whereas power to make laws with I C5 respect to List 1 in the Seventh Scheduleie the StateList the Iaw vests I with the Stateonly Z The learnedcounsel for thepetitionerthereafterreferredto List II to contend that the laws with regardto the of Iandlord and I tenant can only be framed by the State Legislatureand not by tle 08 Parliament The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Z thereforc was that the jurisdiction ivith respectto the mattcr 111 dispute Ll could vests with Courts and Tribunals set up by Stale Legislature and and not underthe WakfAct which is a CentralAct The contention of thc learned counsel for the petilionerwas thalthough theprovisionsofthe Renl Act would not applicablcto the Wakf propertyhowever therelationship ot the petitionerwilh Wakf propertywas to be governedby the tenancylaws e the PunjabTenancyAct and the PunjabSecurityof Land Tenures Act etc and the remedywith thc plaintifflrespondenl was only 10 approachauthorities under thesc Acts alone Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1 5 0 ae C2 No 5570 of 2007 8 To butterthis argumenthe learned counsel for the petitioner conlendedthat in the year 1998 the respondentBoard had moved the revenue Court for eviction of the petitioner on account of nonpayment of rent et On paymentof rent before the revenue Court petitionwas 1 C dismissed and said order was allowed to attain nalitv 0 The learned counsel f7111 the petitionerplacedreliance on the 0 ofthe Honble Allahabad HighCourt in the case of Yal Lala I C Shiv Narain Vs Allatala Tala Malik WaqfAjakhanMus 20021 RCR I CiviO712 to contendthat bar of Section 85 is not apjolicable to thc suit for Z eviction oftenant from theWakfproperly C The Honble Allahabad HighCourt lll the case of Yashpal I Lala Shiv Narain VseAllatala Tala Malik WaqfAjakhanMus supralhas 08 laid clown that bar created bv Scclion 85 of the Wakf Act 1995 did not applyto the suit for eviction of tenanl from a disputedshop after 7 Z determination ofthe tenancyIlease underTransferofPropertyAct Ll The Honble Allahanad HighCourt in the said casc considcring the provisionsof Transfer of PropertyAct regarclingthe terInination of lease The Judgmentof the Honble Allahabad High Court ln thc casc Yashpal Lala Shiv Narain Vs Allatala Tala MaHk WaqfAjakhanMus supraltherefore would have ncl applicalionto the factsofthe presentcase as lhe of the Transfer of PropcrtyAct are nOl applicable to the partieslIl this part of the country and only under lying principlesare applicable Even otherwise there 1S no of lndlord and tcnant betweenthepartiess is clear from lindinghercinafterrecorded Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 0 e CR No 5570 of 2007 9 The argumentof the learned counsel for the petitionerthat as perList4I of Schedule VII ofthe Constitutionthejurisdictiondoes not vest with the Tribunal to adjudicatethe matter thoughon the face of it looks attractive when considered in depthit hasno legsto stand r Section 56 ofthe WakfAct readsas under 0 56 Restriction on power to grant lease of 0 waqfpr0pertyl9 A Iease or subeasej Clny I periodexceedingthreeyears of any immovable C5 pperty which is waqf property shall anything contained in the deed Z or lnstrument of waqfOY lTl Clnv other law for tlle tune beinginforce be 170idund ofno efct r 2 A Iease or subeuse j70ra period I exceeding one year and not exceeding threeyears 06 of immovableproperty which is waqfproperty shall anything contained in the 17 deed or ulstrunlenl of waqlor in arly other Iaw Z Jol lhe lllne beingm force be void and Of 170 Qm eflectunlessit is madewilh theprevioussanction oftheBoard 3 The Board shall lll granting sanction for Ieaseor subvleuseor reneMlalthereof under this seclion review tlle terms clnd conditions on which the lease 0r suI2ase i proposed to thegranted or reneweda17dmakellS appvovaI subjectto the revision ofsuchterms and conditions in such nlanner us it rnall direct Il It would be seen that the tenancyllease clai med by the petitioner1S to be treated as void as tenancybeyondthe periodof three Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 56 0 e CeReNo 5570 of2007 10 vears lS llOt ullder the statutc Il is well settled law tllat anl againstthe statute is void The relationship of thepctitionerVlS avis therespondenttherefore cannot be that of tenant and landlord but thal ofowner and persoil in unauthorizedoccupation r This Court iil the cases 01 Gurdial Singhand others Vse 0 PurljabWakfBoard20041 RCR io 289 JagdishRai Vs Mmohar C Lal and others 20021 RCRio 50 Gram Vikas Sabh Barnala I C5 hm Vs Punjab lVakf Board 2004I RCRCivio 67 and Chapma I Rani and another Vs Dhandev Singhund others 2005I RCRCivio Z 716 has laid down that all questionsrelatingto Wakf propertyare to bc onlyby theWakfTribunal and by no other Court I The Division Bench 0f Honble Andhra PradeshHgh Court lll 08 the case of M BikshapathiVs Government ofAndhra Pradesh 200309 I2CeRivio 212 has laid down that thejurisdictionof thc Wakf Tribunal Z is not limitcd to detennination ofowrnership ofWakfproperty but also as10 whetheril hasbeen rightiyleasedor all othcr questions relatedthereto The Divisiorl Bench of the Honble Kerala High Court iil lhe case of PookoyaHaji Vs Cheriyakoya20049 RCeRGvio 474 has laid down that the Wakf Tribunal had widejurisdictinnto determine any disputc or question or othcr nlatter relaringto the Wakfor Wakfproperty Thc Honble Kerala HighCoun held thEitany disputequestion or othermatters relatingto Wakf or Wakf Propertyunder Section 85 ac wide enoughto take in within its sweep nol onlv matters wIiich ale speciflcally conferred on thc Tribunal by the larlouS provlsiurisof the Act Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 15 0 A CR No 5570 of2007 11 but also any disputequestionor anv othermatter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property The Horible Court ftirther held that the intention of the Legislaturewas to resolve all disputesby onc machineryand forum provided in the Act itself m It would thus be seen that this Court as well as Honble 0 Andhra PradeshHgh Court and Kcrala High Court are ofthe opinionthat C oftenancyllease is also to be determincdbythe Tribunal alonc I C The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner I tllereforethat the learned Tribunal had no j urisdiction deserves to be Z answeredin ncgative tr Mr Anil Iearned counsel for the petitioneron I mer contendedthat in view of the flndingof the learned Revenue Courl 08 dismissing the applicationfor eviction of the petitionerit was nct opcn to the Wakf now to reagitatethe rnatter to seek eviction of the pctitioner 7 Z bcfore the WakfTribunal This pleaagaindeservesto be noticed to berejectedln the ycar 1998 the applicationfor eviction of the petitionerwas dismissedwhetl lhe Wakf Tribunal was nol constituted In any casein view ofSection 56 oflhc Act limitingthe maximumlimit of tenancyto be three vears then on expirv threeyears from the date of passingof order by the Revenue Court the has a neIv cause of aclion to seek evlclioil of tlle petilioilei Il was rightlyheld by the learned Trilounal 1hai bc17re lc2irncd Revenue Court beingof summary nature the decision laken thercfore cannotoperaleas resudicata The contentionon inerit is also rejected Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 S 0 V a CR No 5570 of2007 12 No other pointwas urged For the reasons stated flndingno merit in this revision pctition it is orderedto be dismissed bui with no order as to costs 1 C 74wdcUJ December21 2009 6VINOD K SHARMA I 0 sp JUDGE C I 0 I Z tr I otj r10 7 Z 0 91 0 Rawat Seema 2012.11.02 11: 31 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document