IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.1149 OF 2010 Date:15.03.2011 Between:- The Trustees Board, Mahdavia Club, Hyderabad, rep.by its Honorary Secretary Mohammed Jaffer. ..Defendant/defendant And Mohd.Afzaluddin Ahmed and another .. Plaintiffs/plaintiffs ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 83 of A.P.Wakf Act, (for short, ‘the Act’), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-01-2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) where under and whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to specifically perform the agreement of Memorandum of Understanding dated 03-04-2006 by delivery of 3,500 square feet comprised in first floor covered by Municipal No.1-6-699 situated at Zamistanpur, Musheerabad and to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to them and also to restrain the petitioner/defendant from inducting third parties in the suit schedule property till delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to them was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this petition are as under: Plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of second floor admeasuring 4,000 sq.ft. and 230 sq.ft on first floor covered by Municipal No.1-6-699 situated at Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The suit schedule property is notified Wakf property. The plaintiffs were originally tenants of part of premises covered by Municipal No.1-6-699, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and running in it an educational institution in the name of ‘Modern High School’ (Urdu Medium) recognized and aided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh since 1968. The premises was under the occupation and enjoyment of the plaintiffs comprises of nine class rooms, Head Master’s Office room, Administrative Office and three toilets etc in the western portion of the premises. Defendant interfered in lawful enjoyment of plaintiffs. Due to such dispute, respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.80 of 2001 for perpetual injunction and it was agreed against the defendant. Defendant, as a counterblast, filed O.S.No.21 of 2002 for ejectment against the plaintiffs and it was dismissed on contest. Respondent No.1 and defendant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which was registered on 03-04-2006. As per M.O.U., defendant took possession of site subject to undertaking that defendant shall deliver the floor after completion of construction admeasuring 3,500 sq.ft. on or before 12th June, 2006 for shifting existing Modern High School (Urdu Medium). As per the undertaking, plaintiffs handed over the site in their occupation to facilitate the proposed construction. Plaintiffs were under obligation to enhance the present rent from Rs.2,070/- to Rs.3,000/- from the date of delivery of the first floor to plaintiffs after completion of the construction work. The defendant, as per M.O.U., provided alternative accommodation to plaintiffs in a building known as the Bahadur-yar-Jung. In case of delay in construction of the proposed building, the condition was to be followed from the date of delivery of possession till the date of delivery of first floor as per M.O.U. As per the terms and conditions of M.O.U., plaintiffs paid rent to defendant ever since plaintiffs are using the open space in front of the premises as a playground for the students as usual. Plaintiffs paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant subject to the condition that the amount will be adjusted in the monthly rent at the rate of 50% per month on the rent and the balance 50% rent has to be paid every month. Plaintiffs have complied each and every clause of M.O.U. strictly. Plaintiffs stated that the defendant instead of complying the terms and conditions of M.O.U., issued a letter date 25-08-2006 requesting the plaintiffs to shift the school from first floor to second floor and further stated that the first floor is required for the trust activities and was not for letting out to others. Considering the request of the defendant, plaintiffs agreed on condition that the defendant shall deliver possession to the extent of 230 sq.ft. On the first floor for Administrative Office and Principal’s room and modifying the M.O.U. instead of first floor to second floor and further, there will be no change in the terms and conditions of M.O.U. This has to be done by defendant. Resolution to this effect is to be followed by registration at the cost of defendant, which was felt necessary because of the long service lawfully done by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, exchange of letters took place between plaintiffs and defendant but of no avail. Finally, plaintiffs got issued letter dated 12- 08-2007 reiterating all their stand and asserted that the plaintiffs have fully complied with the terms and conditions of M.O.U. but the defendant unnecessarily harassed the plaintiffs by non-compliance of undertaking despite plaintiffs’ timely requests, reminder and demands to comply with covenants of M.O.U. Besides that, defendant’s letter contains uncalled for and baseless accusations. Plaintiffs further submit that through their letter dated 12-08- 2007, the defendant was informed that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by receiving delivery of possession of first floor as per M.O.U. and to pay rent thereof. So plaintiffs have no other alternative except to get reliefs through Court of law by specific performance. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to comply with the terms and conditions of M.O.U. and hence, the plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed written statement and contended that the plaintiffs are in possession of the second floor portion and a room on the first floor portion near the stair case in respect of the suit schedule property, which is a registered wakf property bearing Municipal No.1-6- 699, Zamisthanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad admeasuring 4,000 sq.ft as a tenant of the defendant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not the original tenants of the defendant. Respondent No.1 alone let out a ground floor portion of building by virtue of rental deed dated 12-06-1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- only. Respondent No.1 has obtained the said premises to run a school in the name and style of ‘Modern School’, which was subsequently upgraded and named as ‘Modern High School’. At the time of inception of tenancy, respondent No.2 was not at all in existence. So there arose no question of entering into a tenancy agreement between respondent No.2 and the defendant. The very factum of inception of tenancy in the year 1968 was categorically admitted by respondent No.1 in para No.2 of his plaint in O.S.No.80 of 2001, which was decreed by this Tribunal. Even the said Memorandum of Understanding was signed by respondent No.1 in his individual and personal capacity. There is no privity of contract between respondent No.2 and defendant and also there is no contract between plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant denied that a portion of suit premises was under the occupation of plaintiffs comprising of nine classrooms, Head Master’s room, Administrative Office and three toilets. In fact, the plaintiffs let out second floor of premises bearing No.1-6-699, Zamisthanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad admeasuring about 4,000 sq.ft. in the western portion of the premises as per the sketch plan filed therewith together with a room on first floor of the suit premises near staircase after the execution of M.O.U. It is further submitted that after execution of the said M.O.U, the defendant constructed an R.C.C. structure at premises No.1-6- 699 comprising of first and second floor. The dimensions of the rooms on second floor and a room on first floor near the staircase and the requirements to run a school were specified by respondent No.1 from time to time. Accordingly, the second floor portion was constructed and the first floor portion was retained as open hall to be used for purposes of marriages, functions etc, except one room on first floor near staircase, which was let out to respondent No.1. After the completion of the construction, respondent No.1 has offered to obtain the second floor portion of the said premises along with one office room on the first floor vide his letter dated 12-08-2007 and accordingly, shifted his school to the second floor premises in December, 2006 as per his own wish and will and accepted to continue to run his school in the second floor as a tenant of the defendant from 08-01-2007 and his offer is accepted by the defendant through a letter dated 19-02-2007, which was acknowledged by respondent No.1. So the premises, which was let out to respondent No.1, is described as ‘second floor’ comprising a carpet area of 4,000 sq.ft plus one office room on the first floor near the stair case, which is to be vacated by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the M.O.U. has lost its significance and legal value and its judicious aspect in view of letter dated 12-08-2007 and the defendant’s letter dated 19-02-2007. So any undertaking, which was allegedly given by the defendant, or any so called agreement referred to in the M.O.U., cannot be specifically enforced as the plaintiffs are estopped from getting it enforced by his conduct and so it is hit by doctrine of ‘estoppel by conduct’. It is further submitted that defendant never provided alternate accommodation to the plaintiffs but the alternate accommodation was provided to respondent No.1 on the Mezzanine floor of the northern portion of the then existed constructed property of the defendant till he shifted to the second floor portion of the newly constructed building portion on the western side of the property. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs are using the open space in the property in question as a play ground and also denied that the plaintiffs have complied with each and every clause of M.O.U. and respondent No.1 did not comply with some of the clauses mentioned in M.O.U. and in view of exchange of letter between respondent No.1 and defendant, the entire dispute was diluted and subsided. Plaintiffs never stated in the letter dated 12-08- 2007 that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by receiving delivery of possession of first floor as per M.O.U. and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable? 2. Whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction? 3. Whether the suit is under value? 6. Additional issues were also framed as under: 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable? 2. Whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether the suit is ‘under valued’? 7. Again, additional issues were framed as under: 1. Whether a notice before the institution of suit is mandatory? 2. Whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to grant relief to the plaintiffs as prayed for? 3. Whether the M.O.U. dt.03-04-2006 can be specifically enforced in view of the letter of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant dated 12-08-2007 and 19-02-2007? 4. Whether there is privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from seeking the relief as prayed for under the doctrine of estoppel by conduct? 8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 9. As seen from the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has placed reliance upon Ex.A-1, which is the Memorandum of Understanding, where under and whereby, it is obligatory on the part of the defendant to deliver first floor of the suit schedule property in order to facilitate the plaintiffs to run the school. Ex.A-1 was superceded by another M.O.U., which is marked as Ex.A-10. That document has not at all been referred to by Tribunal. The relevancy and admissibility of that document has not been considered at all. When eleven issues have been framed for trial, not even a single issue is answered. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C. recognizes a normal rule and enacts that all the issues arising in a suit should ordinarily be tried together and a judgment should be pronounced on those issues. The essential element of a judgment is that there should be a statement of the grounds of the decision. It should contain (i) a concise statement of the case (ii) the issues for determination (iii) the decision thereon and (iv) the reasons for such decision. Therefore, the way in which the Tribunal disposed of the matter cannot be said to be a judicial order adverting to answering the issues with reference to the evidence adduced by both the parties. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25-01-2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to dispose of the suit with reference to the issues framed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any observation made is only for the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition. Uninfluenced by any observation, the Tribunal shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.1149 OF 2010 Date:15.03.2011 AMD