JUDGMENT : V.K. SHARMA, J. 1. The present regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 1-P/I/1996, titled Shri Om Parkash Chaudhary v. Punjab Wakf Board and Ors., whereby the suit for declaration with permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession filed by the Appellant as Plaintiff against the Respondents being Defendants has been dismissed. 2. The facts pleaded by the parties can be stated thus: The dispute between the parties concerns a shop located in the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 251 min/698, Khasra Nos. 919 and 920, plots two, measuring 38-32 square meters as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 of Mahal Palampur Khas, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., which is shown as owned by Defendant No. 1. In the column of possession, the names of Defendant No. 2 and one Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Krishan Dev find mention. Both of them were understood to be carrying some joint business in the suit premises. However, they apparently fell out with each other, whereafter the latter left the shop and Defendant No. 2 remained the sole allottee/lessee under Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was under financial stress and had to repay the debts to several creditors. So much so, that he was unable to pay even the rent of the suit premises to Defendant No. 1. It was in such circumstances that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 arrived at a settlement, whereby the latter surrendered the suit premises in favour of the former in consideration of certain payment which included payment of arrears of rent due to Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff also approached Defendant No. 1 submitting necessary application and undertaking to repay the outstanding arrears of rent due from Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was also provided with the original affidavit dated 6.1.1993 sworn by Defendant No. 2 and duly attested. 3. Defendant No. 1 after satisfying itself about inter se settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and also the Plaintiff agreeing to abide by the usual terms and conditions of allotment/lease, issued allotment letter/allotment order No. 348/1993, dated 24.7.1993. The lease commenced from 1.1.1993. The possession of the suit premises was handed over to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 2 on 13.6.1993. The lease commenced from 1.1.1993. The possession of the suit premises was handed over to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 2 on 13.6.1993. Ever since the Plaintiff was coming in possession of the suit premises on payment of Rs. 300/- per month as rent. On the request of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 also accorded permission in writing by issuing 'No Objection Certificate' allowing him to raise construction on first floor of the suit premises. 4. It was further averred that as agreed between the parties to the suit, the Plaintiff, inter alia, cleared arrears of rent and also continued to pay future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- to Defendant No. 1 up to May, 1995. The Plaintiff started a restaurant, named and styled as 'Luxmi Restaurant' after furnishing and renovating the shop. The restaurant was registered under the H.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1969. On the application of the Plaintiff, he was granted water connection by the competent authority as also a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Punjab Rules, 1958. The shop was equipped with furniture, various articles, crockery etc., which were duly insured. Since the restaurant business was not picking up to the expectation of the Plaintiff, he was thinking of some alternate enterprise. 5. In the meantime, Defendant No. 2, who had surrendered his tenancy to Defendant No. 1 and had put him in possession of the suit premises, started playing some mischief for the last about two months from filing of the suit. He started proclaiming that he has been re-allotted the suit premises by Defendant No. 1 and that he will take possession of the same and start his own business. He even threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences 'with his muscle power' and tried to break open the suit premises with the assistance of some hired persons. The matter was referred to some influential persons of the town who took charge of the shop premises by locking it and retaining the keys with them. However, despite proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur in which the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 have been restrained from interfering in the suit premises, Defendant No. 2 was claiming that he had been re-allotted the suit premises and threatened to take possession of the same forcibly. 6. However, despite proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur in which the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 have been restrained from interfering in the suit premises, Defendant No. 2 was claiming that he had been re-allotted the suit premises and threatened to take possession of the same forcibly. 6. Further pleadings are to the effect that the Plaintiff feared that the Defendants might have colluded and re-allotment orders might have been issued in favour of Defendant No. 2 by Defendant No. 1. According to the Plaintiff during the pendency of the valid subsisting lease in his favour, Defendant No. 1 cannot issue another lease/allotment order in respect of the suit premises in favour of any other person including Defendant No. 2 and such lease/allotment is against law and thus, null and void. Defendant No. 1 could not oust the Plaintiff except by recourse to legal proceedings. The Plaintiff falls within the definition of tenant and unless evicted through the process prescribed under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, he cannot be evicted or dispossessed. The Plaintiff's tenancy rights being in jeopardy, he was entitled to seek the reliefs claimed for in the suit. In case he is unauthorisedly dispossessed from the shop premises, he is entitled to the alternative relief of possession. 7. Initially the suit was filed against two Defendants, namely Defendant No. 1 Punjab Wakf Board and Defendant No. 2 Shri Kapil Dev. However, it was later on amended and Defendant No. 3 Shri Satish Katoch was also joined as a party-Defendant on the averments that he is alleged to be the present allottee/lessee of the suit premises. He has been impleaded as a party to avoid multiplicity of suits. Any allotment/lease in favour of Defendant No. 3 is null and void and has apparently been created to frustrate the claim of the Plaintiff. 8. The suit was contested by the Defendants by filing separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 has raised various legal objections as to cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, valuation, limitation, maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, averments as to the description of the suit premises have been admitted. However, it is denied that Defendant No. 2 and Shri Pawan Kumar were carrying on joint business in the suit premises and that they fell out with each other. On merits, averments as to the description of the suit premises have been admitted. However, it is denied that Defendant No. 2 and Shri Pawan Kumar were carrying on joint business in the suit premises and that they fell out with each other. It was also denied that Defendant No. 2 was unable to pay the rent of the suit premises. The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 never arrived at any settlement nor the latter surrendered the suit premises in favour of the former in consideration of certain payment. The Plaintiff had not paid the arrears of rent to Defendant No. 1. It was also denied that the Plaintiff approached Defendant No. 1 submitting necessary application with an undertaking to repay the outstanding arrears of rent due from Defendant No. 2. The averments that Defendant No. 1 was also provided with the original affidavit dated 6.1.1993 sworn by Defendant No. 2 have also been denied. It was denied that the Plaintiff ever came in possession of the suit premises on 13.6.1996 and instead it was pleaded that Defendant No. 2 was a lessee of Defendant No. 1 and he had no right, title and interest to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. There is no vacant space on the spot and Plaintiff has not raised any construction on the first floor, as alleged. The 'disputed property' comprises only of the 'demised premises', which is owned by Defendant No. 1. As a matter of fact, Defendant No. 2 started entering into some private deals in respect of the suit premises with the Plaintiff and as a result of which Defendant No. 1 wanted to cancel his lease, but in the meanwhile, Defendant No. 1 learnt about evil designs of the Plaintiff and approached Defendant No. 2, who handed over the physical possession of the suit premises to Defendant No. 1, who leased out the same with possession to Defendant No. 3 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- with effect from 1.3.1996. The previous lessee was Defendant No. 2 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. However, it was admitted that permission in writing by way of issuance of no objection certificate was granted by the competent authority to the Plaintiff. It was averred that registration of the restaurant is no proof of tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff. The previous lessee was Defendant No. 2 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. However, it was admitted that permission in writing by way of issuance of no objection certificate was granted by the competent authority to the Plaintiff. It was averred that registration of the restaurant is no proof of tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff. The suit premises were never let out to the Plaintiff nor Defendant No. 1 received any rent from him. It was lastly averred that if the Plaintiff allegedly claims to be in possession of the suit premises, then it must be in collusion with Defendant No. 3, who is a lessee under Defendant No. 1 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The rent of the suit premises was never Rs. 300/-, as alleged by the Plaintiff. 9. Defendant No. 2 raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, maintainability, valuation and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that the Plaintiff and replying Defendant arrived at a settlement, but the former did not obey the agreed settlement. It was denied that possession of the suit premises was handed over to the Plaintiff by the replying Defendant. It was also denied that the Plaintiff paid rent on behalf of the replying Defendant. Since the lease was in favour of the replying Defendant, he could not sub let the suit premises to the Plaintiff nor could hand over possession of the same to him. Even otherwise, as the Plaintiff did not obey the agreed settlement, there was no question of handing over possession of the suit premises to him. It was denied for want of knowledge that any lease/allotment was made by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff. However, possession of the Plaintiff over the suit premises was categorically denied. In fact, at present the lease/allotment is in favour of Defendant No. 3 and possession of the suit premises is also with him and he is paying the rent. There was no restaurant in the suit premises and the Plaintiff is also not in possession thereof. 10. Defendant No. 3 also raised almost identical legal objections. In fact, at present the lease/allotment is in favour of Defendant No. 3 and possession of the suit premises is also with him and he is paying the rent. There was no restaurant in the suit premises and the Plaintiff is also not in possession thereof. 10. Defendant No. 3 also raised almost identical legal objections. On merits while admitting the description of the suit premises to be correct, it was denied for want of knowledge that Defendant No. 2 and the said Pawan Kumar were jointly carrying on business in the suit premises or they fell out with each other and consequently, the latter left the shop leaving behind Defendant No. 2 as the sole allottee/lessee under Defendant No. 1. It was also denied that Defendant No. 2 fell in arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises and that he surrendered the same in favour of the Plaintiff. It was also denied that the Plaintiff paid rent on behalf of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 being the original lessee could not sub let or give the suit premises to the Plaintiff by any stretch of imagination. It was denied that Defendant No. 1 issued any allotment letter in favour of the Plaintiff on 24.7.1993 or that possession of the suit premises was handed over to him on 13.6.1993. It was also denied that the Plaintiff is coming in possession of the suit premises since the date of alleged allotment. Rather, it was pleaded that Defendant No. 3 has been allotted the suit premises by Defendant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- and he is coming in possession of the same since the date of allotment and the Plaintiff has nothing to do with it. It was also denied that the Plaintiff has cleared the arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises or thereafter, he continued to pay monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The averments regarding opening of the restaurant in the suit premises, after renovating and furnishing the same and registration thereof were also denied. The issuance of water connection was also denied. While asserting that the suit premises are in possession of the replying Defendant, it was denied that the allotment in his favour is null and void and instead, it was pleaded that lease/allotment in his favour is in accordance with law, rules and procedure. The issuance of water connection was also denied. While asserting that the suit premises are in possession of the replying Defendant, it was denied that the allotment in his favour is null and void and instead, it was pleaded that lease/allotment in his favour is in accordance with law, rules and procedure. He has paid the rent amounting to Rs. 11,000/-from 1.3.1996 to 31.1.1997 and is paying rent thereafter regularly. 11. The Plaintiff by filing rejoinders to the above written statements filed by the Defendants has refuted the respective stands taken by them and has instead re-iterated the averments set up in the plaint. 12. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is an allottee/lessee of the suit premises of Defendant No. 1 and in case he was dispossessed, if he entitled for the possession, if so, its effect? OPP. 2. Whether Defendant No. 3 is allottee/lessee on the suit premises under Defendant No. 1 w.e.f. 1.3.1996 and is in possession of the same, if so, its effect? OPD-3. 3. Whether the allotment made by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff was revoked at any point of time, if so, its effect? OPD-1. 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Relief. 13. After the parties led evidence and were heard by the learned trial Court, the suit was dismissed, as already noticed. Whereas, issues No. 2 & 3 were held in affirmative, the remaining issues were decided in negative. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 15. Whereas, it was contended on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff) that the pleadings set up on behalf of Defendant No. 1 are in contradiction to its own documents, particularly allotment order dated 20.11.1995 Ext. D-6 and order of cancellation of allotment of even date Ext. D-5, whereby on the one hand, it is disputing the lease/allotment in favour of the Plaintiff, on the other, the plea of cancellation of lease/allotment is set up, on account of which, the appeal is liable to be accepted, the Defendants have supported the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999. 16. The following questions arise for determination in this appeal: 1. 16. The following questions arise for determination in this appeal: 1. As to whether the Plaintiff had entered into possession of the suit premises on the basis of allotment order Ext. PW-7/A? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in affirmative, as to whether the Plaintiff had himself vacated the suit premises and thereafter, these were again let out by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order dated 20.11.1995, Ext. D-6 or the Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises? 3. As to whether thereafter, Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch entered into possession of the suit premises unlawfully in collusion with Defendants No. 1 & 2? 17. Now, I shall take up the aforesaid questions one by one. Question No. 1: As to whether the Plaintiff had entered into possession of the suit premises on the basis of allotment order Ext. PW-7/A? 18. Admittedly, the suit premises are Wakf property. Defendant No. 1, Punjab Wakf Board (Now Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board) is its owner. It is in evidence that initially the suit premises were let out by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev and one Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Krishan Dev. The averments as regard the revenue entries to this effect set up on behalf of the Plaintiff vide para 1 of the plaint have been categorically admitted on behalf of Defendant No. 1 in the corresponding para of the written statement filed by it. However, later on these were let out by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff vide allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, dated 24.7.1993. A perusal of the allotment order (Ext. PW-7/A) would go to show that the name of the earlier tenant mentioned therein is that of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev etc. Against column No. 11 of allotment order Ext. PW-7/A as to how the premises were vacated by the previous tenant, the entry is 'through mutual understanding' meaning thereby that the Plaintiff had entered into possession of the suit premises through mutual understanding with Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev and the said Shri Pawan Kumar. As per column No. 14 of the allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, the date of commencement of the tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff is recorded as 1.1.1993. As per column No. 14 of the allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, the date of commencement of the tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff is recorded as 1.1.1993. Vide a separate 'No Objection Certificate' of even date, i.e. 24.7.1993, Defendant No. 1 also permitted the Plaintiff to construct 'first floor only' on the suit premises. 19. Though a feeble attempt has been made on behalf of the Defendants to dispute the identity of the suit premises vis--vis the premises let out to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 in which he had started the restaurant business under the name and style of 'M/s Laxami Restaurant', yet, to my mind, they have not succeeded in the endeavour. The reasons to arrive at this conclusion are set out hereinafter. 20. Ext. PW-1/A is the copy of statement of Shri Abdu Samad, Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Branch Office, Dharamshala, District Kangra. It was recorded in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Palampur, District Kangra in the proceedings under Sections 107/150/145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure) titled as State v. Shri Kapil Dev and Anr., initiated by the police wherein Defendant No. 1, Shri Kapil Dev and the Plaintiff, Shri Om Prakash Chaudhary had been arrayed as opposite parties No. 1 & 2, respectively. The statement has been proved in evidence by PW-1, Shri Des Raj, Reader to SDM, Palampur. 21. A bare reading of statement Ext. PW-1/A would go to show that shop No. 2/93 mentioned therein co-relates to the shop number mentioned in allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, dated 24.7.1993 vide which the suit premises were let out to the Plaintiff with effect from 1.1.1993. PW-4, Shri S.D. Verma, Labour-cum-Shop Inspector has stated during cross-examination that to his knowledge, there was no other restaurant being run in the name and style of 'M/s Laxami Restaurant', but he could say so only after confirmation from the record, after which no further cross-examination was directed against him on this aspect. PW-5, Shri Tilak Raj has also stated categorically during cross-examination that the Plaintiff had no other shop at Palampur. Another clinching piece of evidence to nail this controversy forms part of the deposition of PW-7, Shri M.K. Khan, Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. PW-5, Shri Tilak Raj has also stated categorically during cross-examination that the Plaintiff had no other shop at Palampur. Another clinching piece of evidence to nail this controversy forms part of the deposition of PW-7, Shri M.K. Khan, Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. During cross-examination, it was suggested to him on behalf of Defendants No. 2 & 3 and he has admitted the suggestion to be correct that after November, 1994, the Plaintiff left the premises and did not pay any rent, meaning thereby that even as per Defendants No. 2 & 3, the suit premises remained in possession of the Plaintiff up to November, 1994 and it could have been only under allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, dated 24.7.1993. 22. Application Ext. DD, dated 27.9.1995 moved by Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev to the Secretary of Defendant No. 1-Wakf Board and his affidavit of even date, i.e. 27.9.1995 also go to establish the identity of the suit premises as having been allotted in favour of the Plaintiff. Alternate copies of these documents have also been brought on record as Ext. D-3 and Ext. D-4. 23. The identity of the suit premises is also established even from the depositions of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev as DW-1 and DW-1/1, Shri Gafoor Ali. 24. In view of the above, receipts Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B regarding security and connection fee for private water connection, respectively, water bill Ext. PW-2/C and receipt thereof Ext. PW-2/D and receipt Ext. PW-2/E on account of licence fee (PFA) in respect of M/s Laxami Restaurant proved in evidence by PW-2, Shri Rakesh Kumar, statement of account Ext. PW-3/A in respect of M/s Laxami Restaurant and Sweets Shop proved by PW-3, Shri O.P. Bhatt and registration certificate of establishment (M/s Laxami Restaurant) Ext. PW-4/A and the connected documents being form Nos. 6 & 7, Ext. PW-4/B to Ext. PW-4/G proved by PW-4, Shri S.D. Verma, Labour-cum-Shop Inspector, Palampur are conclusively connected with the suit premises. It being so, it is proved beyond any doubt that the Plaintiff had set up and was running restaurant business in the suit premises under the name and style of 'M/s Laxami Restaurant' during the relevant period. 25. This inference is further fortified from the statements on oath made by PW-5, Shri Tilak Raj, PW-6, Shri Om Prakash, besides the statement of the Plaintiff as PW-8. 26. 25. This inference is further fortified from the statements on oath made by PW-5, Shri Tilak Raj, PW-6, Shri Om Prakash, besides the statement of the Plaintiff as PW-8. 26. As already noticed, allotment of the suit premises in favour of the Plaintiff is manifest from the allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, dated 24.7.1993. On the same day vide 'No Objection Certificate' Ext. PW-7/B, he was permitted to raise construction of first floor on the suit premises. Both these documents, alternate copies whereof have also been brought on record as Ext. PZ and Ext. PZ/2, have been proved in evidence by PW-7 Shri M.K. Khan, Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt., who is the top most functionary of Defendant No. 1. 27. The factum of the Plaintiff entering into possession of the suit premises pursuant to allotment is also evident from the affidavit of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev, Ext. PX dated 6.1.1993, affidavit of the Plaintiff Ext.PY of even date, i.e. 6.1.1993 and the application Ext. PZ/1 submitted by him to the Secretary of Defendant No. 1 on that very day. 28. Payment of rent in respect of the suit premises by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1, vide receipts Ext.PW7/C-1, Ext. PW7/C-2 and Ext. PW7/C-4 to Ext. PW7/C-7 has been proved by PW-7, Shri M.K. Khan. The evidence to this effect unmistakably goes to show that the suit premises were in fact allotted to the Plaintiff and he had entered into possession thereof and had been paying rent to Defendant No. 1. PW-7, Shri M.K. Khan has categorically stated in chief-examination itself that the lease in favour of the Plaintiff was governed by the Wakf Act as well as H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. Thus, the first question stands answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2: If the answer to question No. 1 is in affirmative, as to whether the Plaintiff had himself vacated the suit premises and thereafter, these were again let out by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order dated 20.11.1995, Ext. D-6 or the Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises? 29. Question No. 2: If the answer to question No. 1 is in affirmative, as to whether the Plaintiff had himself vacated the suit premises and thereafter, these were again let out by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order dated 20.11.1995, Ext. D-6 or the Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises? 29. Whereas, the case of the Plaintiff is that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises while he was away to Jammu, to the contrary the case set up on behalf of the Defendants is that since he was not in possession of the suit premises, the allotment was cancelled vide letter Ext. D-5, dated 20.11.1995 sent through registered A.D. post and thereafter, simultaneously the suit premises were allotted in favour of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order Ext. D-6, dated 20.11.1995. However, DW-1/1, Shri Gafoor Ali has made the following categorical statement during cross-examination at the fag end of his deposition: The record which I have brought does not contain the acknowledgement or the postal receipt of original letter, copy of which is Ex. D5. It is incorrect that the letter copy of which is Ex. D5 was never sent to the Plaintiff and that it was prepared subsequently in connivance with Defendant No. 2 & 3. I have no proof if this letter, the copy of which is Ex. D5 was received by the Plaintiff. 30. Statement Ext. PW-1/A of Shri Abdu Samad, Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board made before the SDM, Palampur in the aforesaid proceedings u/s 107/150/145 Code of Criminal Procedure is also to the similar effect. It is further recited therein that Defendant No. 1-Wakf Board had not taken recourse to any legal proceedings for ejectment of the Plaintiff from the suit premises. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to suggest that the Plaintiff was evicted from the suit premises in due course of law. It is further recited therein that Defendant No. 1-Wakf Board had not taken recourse to any legal proceedings for ejectment of the Plaintiff from the suit premises. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to suggest that the Plaintiff was evicted from the suit premises in due course of law. Thus, in the face of initiation of the aforesaid proceedings under Sections 107/150/145 Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of Inspector-SHO, Shri Kishan Chand, Police Station, Palampur in which both the Plaintiff, Shri Om Prakash Chaudhary and Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev were arrayed as opposite parties No. 1 & 2, respectively, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff had not complained of forcible dispossession from the suit premises to the police as has been inferred by the learned trial Court. The Plaintiff while appearing as PW-8 has stated in detail about the circumstances under which he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises. His deposition to this effect also finds due corroboration from PW-5, Shri Tilak Raj. 31. Against the above backdrop, allotment of the suit premises in favour of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Devi vide allotment order Ext. D-6, dated 20.11.1995 becomes highly doubtful and in a way amounts to camouflage the forcible dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit premises in his absence by use of sheer force. This inference is deducible from the stand taken by the Defendants to the effect that though the suit premises were allotted in favour of the Plaintiff vide allotment order Ext. PW-7/A, dated 24.7.1993, yet, in fact, he never came to possess the same and as such, the allotment was ultimately cancelled vide letter Ext. D-5, dated 20.11.1995 and the suit premises were simultaneously re-allotted to Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order Ext. D-6 of even date, i.e. 20.11.1995, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is itself falsified from the recital incorporated against column No. 11 of allotment order Ext. D6 which is to the effect that the previous tenant, i.e. the Plaintiff, Shri Om Prakash Chaudhary had himself vacated the suit premises. It being so, the answer to this question is that the Plaintiff had not himself vacated the suit premises and instead was forcibly dispossessed from the same. D6 which is to the effect that the previous tenant, i.e. the Plaintiff, Shri Om Prakash Chaudhary had himself vacated the suit premises. It being so, the answer to this question is that the Plaintiff had not himself vacated the suit premises and instead was forcibly dispossessed from the same. Question No. 3: As to whether thereafter, Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch entered into possession of the suit premises unlawfully in collusion with Defendants No. 1 & 2? 32. It is, thus, crystal clear that neither the Plaintiff had himself relinquished possession of the suit premises nor was evicted therefrom by taking recourse to due process of law. It has also been held that he was forcibly eased out of the suit premises by the Defendants in collusion with each other. It is apparent from a combined and harmonious reading of the evidence on record that insofar as the Wakf property involved in the present case, i.e. the suit premises is concerned, it was free for all. Everybody, including the functionaries of the Wakf Board and the tenants treated it as their own fiefdom. As if they were treating it at their own whims, it could be allotted to any one at their sweet will and the allotment could also be cancelled at the drop of a hat. 33. Once it has been held that the dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit premises was not in accordance with law, the consequent allotment in favour of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev or Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch cannot at all be clothed with any legal validity for the reason that the Plaintiff was a statutory tenant under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and could not have been evicted from the suit premises without taking recourse to the relevant provisions of the said Act. While arriving at this inference, I am fortified from the following observations contained in para 14 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, (1974) 1 SCC 48 Mr. Gupte strenuously submits that 'lawful possession' cannot be divorced from an affirmative, positive legal right to possess the property and since the lease had expired by efflux of time the tenant in this case had no legal right to continue in possession. V. Manickavasagam and Others, (1974) 1 SCC 48 Mr. Gupte strenuously submits that 'lawful possession' cannot be divorced from an affirmative, positive legal right to possess the property and since the lease had expired by efflux of time the tenant in this case had no legal right to continue in possession. In the context of Rule 13, we are clearly of opinion that a tenant on the expiry of the lease cannot be said to continue in 'lawful possession' of the property against the wishes of the landlord if such a possession is not otherwise statutory protected under the law against even lawful eviction through court process, such as under the Rent Control Act. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act does not offer such protection but only, as stated earlier, forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title. 34. In view of the above, the allotment in favour of Defendant No. 2, Shri Kapil Dev vide allotment order Ext. D6, dated 20.11.1995 or Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch vide allotment order Ext. D9, dated 15.4.1996 are nonest and consequently without any legal force. The consequent payment of rent, if any, vide receipts Exts. D1, DB and DC, is also of no legal effect. 35. Since an objection, as to bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts u/s 85, Wakf Act, 1995, has been raised on behalf of the contesting Respondents (Defendants No. 1 & 3), it shall be appropriate to notice the provision which is to the following effect: 85. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. No suit or legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. 36. For consideration of the bar u/s 85 of the Act ibid, the relevant provisions of Section 83 thereof which are to the following effect, shall have to be looked into: 83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc. (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think if, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each of such Tribunals. (2).... (3).... (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think if, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each of such Tribunals. (2).... (3).... (4) Every Tribunal shall consist of one person, who shall be a member of the State Judicial Service holding a rank, not below that of a District, Sessions or Civil Judge, Class I, and the appointment of every such person may be made either by name or by designation. 37. As the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala being the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, it would be deemed to have been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. It being so, the bar u/s 85 of the Act ibid would not come into play and more so, when no such objection was raised on behalf of the Defendants before the learned trial Court. 38. Another aspect of the matter which requires due mention is that though the appeal was heard and judgment reserved on 2.3.2010, yet, arguments had to be re-heard on 29.3.2010 as per the following order passed on that day: The appeal was heard on 2.3.2010 and judgment was reserved. However, the matter requires to be re-heard in the light of the direction issued by this court to the Secretary of Respondent No. 1 vide the following order dated 12.11.2009 calling upon him to file his personal affidavit indicating the status of the premises in question: 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. None for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Mandhotra has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he filed Power of Attorney along with one Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, Advocate. No instructions are forothcoming either from him or from Respondent No. 2. The matter is adjourned. However, Respondent No. 2 shall make payment of Rs. 5,000/-as costs to be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund, S.B. Account No. 55832, UCO Bank, High Court Branch Shimla, within a period of four weeks. No instructions are forothcoming either from him or from Respondent No. 2. The matter is adjourned. However, Respondent No. 2 shall make payment of Rs. 5,000/-as costs to be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund, S.B. Account No. 55832, UCO Bank, High Court Branch Shimla, within a period of four weeks. Secretary of Respondent No. 1 shall file his personal affidavit indicating the status of the premises in question. The affidavit be filed within four weeks. List on January, 2010. Sd/- (Sanjay Karol) Judge. The requisite affidavit dated 18.2.2010 along with accompanying annexures stands filed, para 5 whereof is to the following effect: 5. That Sh. Satish Katoch handed over the possession of the said shop to Sh. Sandeep Chauhan son of Sh. Onkar Chand, resident of Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. on 29.9.1999 and vide lease orders No. 24/L-U/385/2000/9147 dated 1.2.2000 (copy of the said orders are annexed at Annexure D-2) Sh. Sandeep Chauhan became the tenant of erstwhile Punjab Wakf Board at monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month which is to be enhanced after every three years @ 20% from 1.9.1999 and at present Sh. Sandeep Chauhan is running a shop in the name of Chamunda Medical Store and paying a rent of Rs. 2,592/- per month and has paid the rent upto 30.12.2009. The need to re-hear the appeal has arisen as the aforesaid Shri Sandeep Chauhan mentioned in para 5 of the above affidavit was neither a party before the learned trial Court nor this Court. 39. However, in view of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which are reproduced below for ready reference and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2552 Hukum Chand v. Om Chand and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 715 and Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2180 transfer of possession of the suit premises by Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch in favour of the aforesaid Shri Sandeep Chauhan having been effected during pendency of the suit, the transferee would be bound by the decree passed in the suit. Order XXIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure: 10. Vidyavati and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2180 transfer of possession of the suit premises by Defendant No. 3, Shri Satish Katoch in favour of the aforesaid Shri Sandeep Chauhan having been effected during pendency of the suit, the transferee would be bound by the decree passed in the suit. Order XXIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure: 10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.- (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of Sub-rule (1). Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.- During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu & Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. 40. The above discussion brings me to hold that the findings returned by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. As a result, the suit filed by the Plaintiff shall stand decreed in the following terms: (a) The Plaintiff is declared to be allottee/lessee of the suit premises comprised of Khata/Khatauni Nos. 251 min/698, Khasra Nos. 919 and 920, measuring 38.32 square meters (known as shop No. W-Z/39 MC No. 315, Palampur) as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 of Mahal Khas, Tehsil Palampur under Defendant No. 1 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. 251 min/698, Khasra Nos. 919 and 920, measuring 38.32 square meters (known as shop No. W-Z/39 MC No. 315, Palampur) as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 of Mahal Khas, Tehsil Palampur under Defendant No. 1 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. (b) However, since it has been held that the Plaintiff has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises, in the alternative a decree for possession in respect of the suit premises fully detailed and described hereinabove under relief Clause (a) is also passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. 41. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999 shall stand reversed.