C.R. No. 192 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 192 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.3.2010 Madan Lal & another .......... Petitioners Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the Wakf Board against a tenant, for the reason that under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, vide which the jurisdiction is conferred on the learned Tribunal, does not give the jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain the dispute between the tenant and the landlord but only deals with the Constitution of the Tribunal to deal with the matters falling under the Act. The dispute of tenancy not falling under the Act, would therefore, not be covered under Section 83 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners, thereafter C.R. No. 192 of 2009 2 referred to Section 7 of the Act, to contend that only matters covered under Section 7 of the Act, are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and not any other matter, therefore, the impugned order being without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason that lease of Wakf's property is covered under the Act. The Wakf Board under the Act has been barred by way of statutory prohibition not to lease the property of the Wakf beyond a particular period. This Court considered the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in detail in Civil Revision No. 5570 of 2007 titled “Balwinder Singh Vs. Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt.”, decided on 22.12.2009, and held, that all matters including the dispute between the landlord and tenant are governed by the Act and not Tenancy law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that the procedure prescribed under Section 54 of the Act should have been followed, instead of suit being decided by the learned Tribunal. This contention again is totally misconceived, in view of decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 5570 of 2007 titled “Balwinder Singh Vs. Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt.”, decided on 22.12.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended, that the learned Tribunal committed, an error in assuming jurisdiction in spite of the fact, that as per the pleadings, it is nowhere mentioned C.R. No. 192 of 2009 3 in the plaint filed by the Wakf Board that the property vested in the Wakf Board. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Tribunal after expiry of one year of lease had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the petitioner, as it would be beyond limitation. This contention also is misconceived and is outcome of misreading of the provisions of the Act, rather it has been provided in the Act, that no ground or plea of limitation can be taken to defeat the rights of Wakf Board. No merit. Dismissed. 16.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE