Disposed

Sameer Husain v. U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024CLRE/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision under Section 83(9) Waqf Act against vacating of interim injunction protecting possession over waqf premises. Court found prima facie merit, stayed operation of the impugned injunction-rejection order and restrained eviction until further orders, granting objections time.

What did the court decide?

Operation of impugned order dated 26.3.2024 stayed; revisionist not to be evicted from premises till next listing on 05.7.2024; objections within three weeks.

Sameer Husain vs U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 39 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sameer Husain

¶3

Opposite Party :- U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Faisal Ahmad Khan,Abdul Muqeem,Syed Ajaz Haider Rizvi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Syed Aftab Ahmad,Mohd Kashif Iqbal

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Sayyed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and Mr. S.A.A. Rizvi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.5 and submits that his power shall be uploaded shortly along with objections. Caveat has been reported of opposite party no.3 but none has appeared on his behalf.

¶7

Opposite party no.1 being merely proforma in nature notice is dispensed with.

¶8

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶9

Revision under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 has been filed against order dated 26.3.2024 in case no.63/2023 whereby interim injunction granted earlier has been vacated and the application for grant of interim injunction has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the premises in question were let out by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 by means of agreement dated 08.7.2019. The revisionist subsequently acquired knowledge that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 themselves were tenants in the premises which were part and parcel of the ‘waqf’ which has been arrayed as opposite party no.5. It is submitted that when private opposite parties no.2 and 3 started interfering in the possession of the revisionist over the premises, he was compelled to file the suit no.63/2024 before the U.P Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow in which initially interim protection was granted vide order dated 30.6.2023 whereafter written statement has been filed by the ‘Waqf’ wehreafter the application for temporary injunction has been rejected vide order dated 26.3.2024 only on the ground that revisionist has not be able to make out a case of either being a tenant or a licencee in the premises in question.

¶11

It is submitted that even the impugned order itself indicates that ‘Mutawalli’ of the waqf in his written statement has also admitted possession of revisionist over the premises in question.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on judgment rendered by full Bench of this Court in the case of Yar Muhammad and Another vs. Lakshmi Das and Others; AIR 1959 Allahabad 1 (FB) as well as judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by legal representative vs. Rao Jagdish Sinh and Others; AIR 1968 (Supreme Court) 620 and various other judgments as well as in the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sawwad Ali vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in [2019 (5) ALJ 310] to submit that possession of the plaintiff even if illegal is required to be protected until and unless a decree of ejectment is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in appropriate proceedings and that there cannot be any forcible eviction of even a trespasser without recourse to law.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4 Waqf Board on the basis of instruction, however, submits that revisionist is no longer in possession over the premises in question due to a fire having broken out, however, he has not produced any document as on date to indicate that either physical or even symbolic possession of the revisionist over the premises in question is no longer

¶14

present. It is also admitted that till date no proceedings for ejectment of revisionist has been filed.

¶15

Prima facie submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted three weeks’ time to file their objection.

¶16

List this case on 05.7.2024 as fresh. Till the next date of listing the operation of impugned order dated 26.3.2024 passed in case no.63/23 [Samir Hussain vs. Massarrat Fatima and Others] shall remain stayed and the revisionist shall not be evicted from the premises in question.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

¶18

mks

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer Husain v. U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Husain v. U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayub Khan Vs Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya and 4 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Khan and Others Vs District Magistrate / District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur and Others

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ashutosh Srivastava vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. through its Regional Manager, and Another

Housila Prasad vs Addl. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and Another vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. President/Registrar and Another