JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular first appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 27.8.2011 of the learned District Judge (Wakf Tribunal), Shimla, H.P., rendered in Civil Suit No. 7-S/1 of 2008. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this first appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the convenience sake) has filed suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of use and occupation charges against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the convenience sake). The defendant had been working as Honorary Imam of mosque at Boileauganj, as per letter dated 31.7.2003, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, of the then Punjab Wakf Board. In the year 2005, the Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board had been constituted. All rights, title and interests of wakf property situated in Himachal Pradesh stood vested in the plaintiff. On 29.1.2006, vide resolution No. 4/2006, the Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board had removed the defendant from the post of Honorary Imam. On representation, the defendant was reinstated. However, in December, 2006, T.V. Channel IBN-7, in its coverage, had caught the defendant red handed taking bribe from the members of the muslim community for sending them to Haz. The defendant was the Chairman of the Haz Committee. The plaintiff on 14.2.2007 had removed the defendant from the service of Honorary Imam. The defendant was in possession of residential accommodation free of cost. There was two storeyed building attached to the mosque, which was used as guest house by the defendant. The defendant had also started running a school of Muhammadan studies in the mosque without the permission from the plaintiff. He was asked to vacate the premises. He has refused to do so. The mosque and the accommodation attached thereto was situated in prime locality of Boileauganj and in any case could fetch rent of Rs. 600/- per day. 3. The defendant resisted the suit. According to him, the Muslim Wakf committee had appointed him as Imam of the mosque. The accommodation under the occupation of the defendant stood permanently allotted to him. He has denied having been removed as Imam by the Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board. The defendant has also denied the charges of bribe. He has not been provided reasonable opportunity before removing him on 14.2.2007. He has started school of Muhammadan studies in the mosque under Shariat. The accommodation under the occupation of the defendant stood permanently allotted to him. He has denied having been removed as Imam by the Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board. The defendant has also denied the charges of bribe. He has not been provided reasonable opportunity before removing him on 14.2.2007. He has started school of Muhammadan studies in the mosque under Shariat. He was not liable to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 600/- per day. 4. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The learned District Judge, Shimla (Wakf Tribunal) held the plaintiff entitled to the possession of residential accommodation of Imam under the occupation of defendant in mosque at Boileauganj. The plaintiff was also held entitled to possession of guest house of the mosque alongwith goods lying therein. A permanent injunction was issued against the defendant restraining him from running school of Muhammadan studies in the mosque at Boileauganj and the accommodation attached thereto. The plaintiff was also held entitled to use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 600/- per day from the date of institution with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment and vacation. Hence, the present regular first appeal. 5. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, appearing for the defendant has vehemently argued that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. He has also argued that the learned District Judge (Wakf Tribunal), Shimla has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 27.8.2011, rendered by the District Judge Shimla (Wakf Tribunal). 6. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides at length. 7. The defendant, during the course of the pendency of the suit, has moved an application on 20.8.2007 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. According to him, the Act was not applicable to the suit land of the plaintiff. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.1.2008, allowed the application preferred by the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be returned for institution before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dated 15.1.2008 by way of FAO No. 156 of 2008, in this Court. FAO No. 156 of 2008 was allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 22.5.2008. The suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be returned for institution before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dated 15.1.2008 by way of FAO No. 156 of 2008, in this Court. FAO No. 156 of 2008 was allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 22.5.2008. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "The petition is to prevent the misuse and also recovery of the wakf property. Admittedly property in question is a wakf property and, therefore, the administration of the same has to be a dispute under the Act. The Board is enjoined with a duty to protect and preserve the wakf property and also take action against the erring officials. The Tribunal having all powers of Civil Court can determine all rival contentions. Any interpretation to the contrary would render the provisions of the Act, empowering the Board to protect and preserve the property to be superfluous and redundant. The Act specifically oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to wakf or wakf property. Thus, no other interpretation can be given to the expression 'any dispute' under 'the Act'. The dispute for protection and preservation of the property is certainly a dispute falling under the Act. In my view, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. The recovery of possession and use and occupation charges is definitely a dispute relating to the wakf under the Act. Simply because an Imam inducted into the wakf property, ceases to be one, it cannot be said that it is a dispute pertaining to the said property would be a dispute against a third person having nothing to do with the wakf. (Subhan Shah through Lrs. Ramjan Khan and Others Vs. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board and Others, AIR 1997 MP 8 )." 8. Thus, it is evident that this Court has categorically held that the District Judge (Wakf Tribunal) had the jurisdiction to go into the matter. The judgment dated 22.5.2008 has attained finality. Thus, the question whether the learned District Judge (Wakf Tribunal) had the jurisdiction in the matter or not is no more res integra in view of the judgment dated 22.5.2008. 9. According to PW-1, Kutab Deen, the defendant was appointed as Honorary Imam by the Punjab Wakf Board vide letter dated 31.7.2003. The judgment dated 22.5.2008 has attained finality. Thus, the question whether the learned District Judge (Wakf Tribunal) had the jurisdiction in the matter or not is no more res integra in view of the judgment dated 22.5.2008. 9. According to PW-1, Kutab Deen, the defendant was appointed as Honorary Imam by the Punjab Wakf Board vide letter dated 31.7.2003. The services of the defendant stood terminated by the plaintiff on 29.1.2006. He was requested to vacate the accommodation vide letter dated 14.2.2007. The accommodation could yield income of Rs. 600/- per day. The defendant was caught red handed accepting the bribe. The Board has appointed Mohd. Mussa Nadvi, as Imam of the mosque. The newly appointed Imam could not be given the accommodation since the defendant has not vacated the same. 10. PW-2, Murad Khan deposed that the defendant was in occupation of the residential accommodation. He was caught red handed while accepting the bribe from Haz pilgrims. 11. The defendant has appeared as DW-1. According to him, the accommodation in question was allotted to him permanently by the Wakf Committee. He was not removed from the services of Imam. He was running a School of Muhammadan studies under the Shariat. 12. DW-2, Sayeed Hasan Falahi was an employee of the Punjab Wakf Board. He tendered in evidence document Ext. DW-2/A. The Punjab Wakf Board had approved the appointment of the defendant as Honorary Imam on 31.7.2003. 13. DW-3, Shafiq Ahmad was also an official of Punjab Wakf Board. He had prepared the document Ext. DW-2/A. DW-4, Krishan Chand deposed that the mosque at Boileauganj had been provided power connection and billing was being done in the name of the defendant. According to DW-5, Mohammad Ali, he had been visiting the mosque but was not charged any amount by the defendant. 14. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the defendant was terminated as honorary Imam on 29.1.2006, vide resolution No. 4/2006. He was directed to vacate the accommodation on 14.2.2007. The defendant has attained the age of 62 years. It is the duty cast upon the Board to protect its property. The defendant, till date, has not assailed his termination as Imam of the mosque. The status of the defendant after order dated 14.2.2007, was of a mere trespasser. He was in unauthorised occupation of the mosque. The defendant has attained the age of 62 years. It is the duty cast upon the Board to protect its property. The defendant, till date, has not assailed his termination as Imam of the mosque. The status of the defendant after order dated 14.2.2007, was of a mere trespasser. He was in unauthorised occupation of the mosque. He has no vested right to reside in the accommodation after his removal as Imam. He had also been using the portion of the premises of the mosque as school of Mohammadan studies without the permission of the plaintiff. He had also been using the portion of the mosque as guest house and charging money from the occupants. The accommodation where the defendant was running guest house is two storeyed. It cannot be believed that the defendant was not charging any amount from the occupants of the guest house. The property is situated in Boileauganj area. It is a commercial area. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled for use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 600/- per day. The learned District Judge (Wakf Tribunal) has correctly appreciated the evidence. The defendant was removed as Imam of the mosque. 15. The Court below has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.