Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2528 (PNJ)

Som Nath v. Punjab Wakf Board

2019-09-11

H.S.MADAAN

body2019
Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Som Nathhad filed a suit before Tribunal Wakf Act, Ludhiana against thedefendants Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt etc., seeking grant ofpermanent injunction on the averments that he is in possession of the suitproperty as lessee and licensee at monthly rent of Rs.5/-, vide allotmentletter dated 26.03.1969/10.04.1969. As a matter of fact, plaintiff and lateSh. Ramji Dass had taken the suit property on lease from defendant Nos.1 & 2 but later on with malafide intention the latter did not accept the rentw.e.f. 01.04.1984 onwards and rather, tried to interfere in possession ofthe plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought the suit inquestion. It may be mentioned here that the suit was earlier pendingbefore Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) but on a reference having been may by him,it was transferred to the Tribunal under Wakf Act at Ludhiana as perorders of learned District Judge, Ludhiana. 2. On notice, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 put in appearance and filedjoint written statement, contesting the suit. Inter alia, it is contended thatthe suit was not maintainable, in view of non service of notice underSection 56 of the Wakf Act by the plaintiff upon the answeringrespondents before filing of the suit; the plaintiff did not have any causeof action to bring the suit, the plaintiff lacked locus standi to institute thesuit and the suit property is presently in possession of defendant No.3 as atenant under defendant Nos.1 & 2 at monthly rent of Rs.720/- w.e.f.01.04.1991, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Theanswering defendants denied that plaintiff and Sh. Ramji Dass had beenpaying rent and licence fee to them regularly or that such answeringdefendants with malafide intention had not accepted the rent w.e.f.01.04.1984, which as alleged was tendered and offered by the plaintiffand late Sh. Ramji Dass. 3. By moving an application, defendant No.3 Madhu KamalSehgal got himself impleaded as a party. Theanswering defendants denied that plaintiff and Sh. Ramji Dass had beenpaying rent and licence fee to them regularly or that such answeringdefendants with malafide intention had not accepted the rent w.e.f.01.04.1984, which as alleged was tendered and offered by the plaintiffand late Sh. Ramji Dass. 3. By moving an application, defendant No.3 Madhu KamalSehgal got himself impleaded as a party. He also filed written statement,taking various legal pleas, rather contending that he is in possession ofthe suit property as it was allotted to him by Punjab Wakf Board; histenancy came into being w.e.f. 01.01.1992 onwards for commercial shed,vide allotment order dated 07.03.1992 and ‘No Objection Certificate’ wasissued in his favour by defendant Nos.1 & 2, allowing him to raiseconstruction on the ground floor of the suit property and for constructingcommercial shed thereon; when the present plaintiff and his associates,namely, Smt. Shashi Bala and Om Parkash etc., made an abortive attemptto usurp the suit property, defendant No.3 had filed a civil suit and alongwith that had moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC forgrant of ad-interim injunction; the said application for grant of ad-interiminjunction was accepted by the trial Court on 03.08.1998. Resultantly, thepresent plaintiff and his associates were restrained from interfering intothe suit property. Such defendant denied that the plaintiff and late Sh.Ramji Dass had taken the suit property on lease in the year 1989, videallotment order dated 10.04.1969 or that any mosque was allotted to themon payment of license fee @ Rs.1/- per month. According to suchdefendant, the plaintiff does not have any right or concern with the suitproperty. Such defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Plaintiff filed replication. From the pleadings of the parties,following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanentinjunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 4. Whether no notice as required under Section 56 of theWakf Act was served upon the defendants? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file presentsuit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file presentsuit? OPD 7. Relief. 5. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to leadevidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing arguments,the Tribunal decided issues No.1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and infavour of defendants. OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file presentsuit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file presentsuit? OPD 7. Relief. 5. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to leadevidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing arguments,the Tribunal decided issues No.1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and infavour of defendants. Issues No.4 & 5 were also decided against theplaintiff and in favour of defendants. Issue No.6 was decided against theplaintiff and in favour of defendants. Consequently, the suit of theplaintiff was dismissed with costs by the Tribunal , vide judgment anddecree dated 25.10.2005. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court, byway of filing the present revision petition, notice of which was given tothe respondents/defendants, who have appeared through counsel. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 8. The Tribunal by proper appraisal of evidence and correctinterpretation of law has returned a finding that as per allotment orderdated 26.01.1968 (Ex.P2), the suit property bearing khasra No.B.III-585,measuring 10 sq. yards, was allotted to the plaintiff and late Sh. RamjiDass at monthly rent of Rs.5/- commencing from 01.01.1969 for a periodof 11 months and that plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass had paid the leaseamount of this area on 06.04.1971, which was to the tune of Rs.60/-, videreceipt Ex.P7. Apart from that, plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass had paidRs.60/- as lease amount on 02.03.1972. As a matter of fact, the leaseamount had been paid by them till 31.03.1973 and not afterwards. Assuch, their possession became unauthorized and illegal, even, it isassumed for the sake of arguments that the plaintiff is in possession of thesuit property. Learned Tribunal has further observed that East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction Act does not apply to the Wakf property and forthe said reason, possession of the plaintiff over the property covered byallotment order Ex.P2 became unauthorized either after expiry of 11months or at least after he stopped paying the lease amount of thisproperty after 31.03.1973 and such like illegal occupant cannot be heldentitled for grant of permanent injunction against true owners i.e.defendant Nos.1 & 2. The Tribunal has further observed that the otherproperty shown in the site plan Ex.P1 except room covered in theallotment order Ex.P2 was not allotted to the plaintiff by way of anyallotment order like Ex.P2, though the plaintiff and late Sh. The Tribunal has further observed that the otherproperty shown in the site plan Ex.P1 except room covered in theallotment order Ex.P2 was not allotted to the plaintiff by way of anyallotment order like Ex.P2, though the plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dasscontinued paying rent of that property, vide rent receipts. As such, afterthe year 1983-84, the plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass did not pay therent for the area allegedly occupied by them shown in red colour in thesite plan Ex.P1 over and above the room allotted to them vide allotmentorder Ex.P2. Therefore, on account of non payment of rent by the plaintiffto defendant No.1 of the suit property over and above the propertycovered in the allotment order Ex.P2, the possession becameunauthorized after 1983-84 and such occupant cannot be held entitled forgrant of permanent injunction against true owners i.e. defendant Nos. 1 &2 and after the year 1983-84, the plaintiff had no right to remain inpossession of the disputed property, which was not even allotted to himby defendant Nos. 1 & 2. The Tribunal found that the plaintiff had noright to maintain his suit for grant of permanent injunction and further hecannot be said to be occupier of the suit property in a lawful manner. 9. While dealing with issue No.4, the Tribunal has observedthat since the plaintiff had not served statutory notice under Section 56 ofthe Wakf Act upon defendant Nos. 1 & 2 before filing of the suit, the suitwas not maintainable and the plaint was even liable to be rejected by theCivil Court at the time of presentation of the plaint. 10. Dealing with issue No.5, the Tribunal has observed that theplaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit since he had failed toprove authorized and lawful possession over the suit property. For similarreasons, no cause of action had arisen to him to bring the suit. 11. Counsel for the petitioner had referred to judgment titledPunjab Wakf Board Vs. Sham Singh Harike, (2019) 4 SCC 698 insupport of his contention that jurisdiction of the Tribunal constitutedunder Wakf Act, 1995 to try the suit was not there and only Civil Courtcould adjudicate the dispute. This judgment does not help the appellantmuch, since the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Sham Singh Harike, (2019) 4 SCC 698 insupport of his contention that jurisdiction of the Tribunal constitutedunder Wakf Act, 1995 to try the suit was not there and only Civil Courtcould adjudicate the dispute. This judgment does not help the appellantmuch, since the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) makingreference for transfer of the suit to the Tribunal under Wakf Act, 1995and the order passed by the District Judge, Ludhiana in that regard werenot challenged by the plaintiff. He is bound by the judgment and decreepassed by the Tribunal. No objection seems to have been taken beforethe Tribunal with regard to its jurisdiction in the matter. Both the partieshad led evidence and counsel for the parties had addressed argumentsbefore the Tribunal. 12. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned, basedupon proper appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of law. Thereis no illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree,which might have called for interference by exercising revisionaljurisdiction. As such, finding no merit in the revision petition, the samestands dismissed.