Dismissed¶31

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

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CLRE/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision dismissed; interim injunction refused. Key terms: U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow; Case No.63 of 2023; order dated 26.03.2024; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC; interim injunction; prima facie possession versus prima facie title; tenant of waqf property; shop no.4 and godown, Karbala Imdad Hussain Khan, Meena Bakeri Chauraha, Rajajipuram, Lucknow; M.R. Co. Tiles; GST registration 2019 not proof of possession; security Rs.4 lakhs; rent Rs.7,250 and Rs.4,225; Section 51 Waqf Act; Waqf Properties Lease Rules 2014; Waqf Board non-committal; coordinate bench order 29.05.2024 staying dispossession; CLRE No. 39 of 2024; Jaspreet Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no error committed by the Waqf Tribunal in rejecting the revisionist's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. ¶29

Sameer Husain vs U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the U.P. Waqf Tribunal erred in rejecting the revisionist's application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, i.e., whether the revisionist established prima facie possession (as distinct from prima facie title) of shop no.4 and the godown so as to warrant injunction. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

This Court finds no error committed by the Waqf Tribunal in rejecting the revisionist's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist's prima facie possession is not proved: the 2019 GST registration does not indicate possession, and the alleged Rs.4 lakhs payment and the cheque to respondent no.3 lack necessary particulars to show any exchange of consideration.

¶25

Key takeaways

The plea of respondent nos.2 and 3 is equally bereft of particulars and self-contradictory, and the stands of the Waqf Board and the Waqf are non-committal; the contentions raised rest only on pleadings without corroborating or substantiating documents.ratio¶29
The Court's observations are only tentative, made solely to test the validity of the Tribunal's rejection; it is open to the parties to lead evidence, which the Waqf Tribunal shall consider on its own merits.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Jaspreet Singh, J. - Civil Revision No. 39 of 2024, decided 11.02.2026: Revision by Sameer Husain against the order dated 26.03.2024 of the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow (Case No.63 of 2023) rejecting his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction, whereby he claimed tenancy (11 months; security Rs.4 lakhs; rent Rs.7,250/- for the shop and Rs.4,225/- for the godown) of shop no.4 and a godown at Karbala Imdad Hussain Khan, near Meena Bakeri Chauraha, Rajajipuram, Lucknow, running business as M.R. Co. Tiles. The Court found the revisionist's prima facie possession unproved - a 2019 GST registration does not evidence possession, and the alleged Rs.4 lakhs payment/cheque lacked particulars of consideration; the private respondents' (nos.2 and 3) plea was equally unsupported; and the Waqf and Waqf Board were non-committal, offering nothing on Section 51 of the Waqf Act or the Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014. Holding that the Tribunal committed no error, and keeping its observations tentative for trial, the Court dismissed the revision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL REVISION No. - 39 of 2024

Sameer Husain

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar,
And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Faisal Ahmad Khan, Abdul Muqeem, Syed Ajaz Haider Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Syed Aftab Ahmad, Mohd Kashif Iqbal

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Faisal Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mohd. Kashif Iqbal learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as Sri S.A.A. Rizvi learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 26.03.2024 whereby the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow in Case No.63 of 2023 rejected an application preferred by the revisionist seeking interim injunction.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that he is a lawful tenant of shop no.4 and Godown situated at Karbala Imdad Hussain Khan, near Meena Bakeri Chauraha Rajajipuram, Lucknow. It is the case of the revisionist that he had taken the aforesaid shop and godown on rent after paying the security amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the respondent no.1. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months and the breakup of the rent has also been mentioned as Rs.7,250/- and Rs.4,225/- relating to the shop and godown in question. It is also stated that the revisionist is running his business under the name and style of M.R. Co. Tiles.

¶12

It is also stated that in the year, 2019, the revisionist felt the need to obtain a GST registration and he is running his business. He has paid the rent to the respondent nos.1 and 2 who are husband and wife. While being in possession the respondent no.2 and 3 attempted to unlawfully

¶13

CLRE No. 39 of 2024

¶14

¶15

dispossess the revisionist which gave rise to a cause of action and in the aforesaid backdrop the revisionist filed the petition before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on 28.06.2023. It is urged that after due contest the said application came to be dismissed and it is further submitted that the tribunal committed an error in failing to consider the material on record including the fact that the revisionist was in possession of the property in question and any person who is in possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law.

¶16

It is further urged that at the time of grant of injunction it is only the prima facie possession which is to be considered and not prima facie title. It is also urged that by taking a dim view of the matter the tribunal erred in rejecting the application.

¶17

It is further urged that a coordinate Bench of this Court while entertaining the revision passed a detailed order on 29.05.2024 wherein the Court was prima facie satisfied regarding the possession of the revisionist and in such circumstances an order staying the dispossession of the revisionist from the premises in question was passed. In such circumstances, it is urged that where the possession has been protected and the matter is yet to be tested in trial before the Waqf tribunal, the same benefit should be extended to the revisionist during trial and in the given circumstances the proceedings before the tribunal may also be expedited.

¶18

Sri Kashif Iqbal learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that he denies that he had let out the premise to the revisionist. It is further submitted that without consent of the respondents, the revisionist entered into premises, however, the contention as stated in the petition filed before the Waqf Tribunal does not disclose true and correct facts. He further submits that the premises still continue to be in the possession of the respondent nos.2 and 3 who are running a tailoring shop from the said premise. In the given facts and circumstances, the prayer for injunction deserves to be rejected.

¶19

Syyed Aftab Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the Board remained non-committal in as much as it has been stated by him that the dispute is

¶20

CLRE No. 39 of 2024

¶21

¶22

primarily between the revisionist and respondent nos.2 and 3 and the Board has no role to play.

¶23

Sri Rizwi learned counsel appearing for the Waqf had also remained non committal in as much as he has not taken any stand as to who is valid tenant of Waqf. In the given scenario, where neither the Waqf Board and nor Waqf had come forward to take a specific stand or to bring on record necessary facts including the impact of the provisions of Section 51 of the Waqf Act as well as the Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014 and how it would interplay with the half baked facts which have been delivered, both, by the revisionist and by the private respondents and the Waqf has no clue as to who is the tenant or who is in possession or what is the status of the revisionist and the private respondents, speaks volumes of the Waqf in question and its management and moreover, the Waqf Board is a party to this petition but it too is a mute spectator.

¶24

In this scenario, if the case of the revisionist is examined, it reveals that it has not filed any document by which it could be ascertained that he is running his business from the said place. A document for procuring a GST registration in the year, 2019 does not indicate possession. It has also not been brought on record that since the registration of the firm whether any transactions have taken place or any GST has been paid. It is also not clear whether the said GST registration remains in subsistence or has been cancelled as there is nothing to support the said registration and that solitary document in itself does not establish possession.

¶25

There is nothing on record on behalf of the revisionist to indicate that he has been in possession or how he transferred a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as alleged by him paid to the respondent nos.2 and 3. Reference to a cheque paid to the respondent no.3 is also bereft of necessary particulars to examine as to whether actually there has been any exchange of consideration between the revisionist and the respondent nos.2 and 3. Thus, apparently the possession of the revisionist is also not proved prima facie as the documents annexed with this revision do not establish the same.

¶26

As far as the plea of the respondent nos.2 and 3 is considered, they are

¶27

CLRE No. 39 of 2024

¶28

¶29

also bereft of necessary particulars and rather they are self contradictory without bringing any material on record. Hence, their contention also cannot be appreciated, at this stage. As already noticed above, the stand of the Waqf Board as well as the Waqf in question is also non committal and in absence of any material particulars brought on record by either the Waqf Board or the Waqf in question, the contentions which are sought to be raised are only on pleadings but without any corroborating or substantiating documents. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Waqf Tribunal in rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

¶30

Be that as it may, the observations made by this Court is only tentative for the purposes of ascertaining the validity of the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal rejecting the application of the revisionist under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It will be appropriate and open for the parties to lead their necessary evidence which shall be considered by the Waqf Tribunal while considering the case on its own merits.

¶31

With the aforesaid, the revision is dismissed.

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

February 11, 2026

¶34

Harshita

¶35

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Singhan and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Sumirta vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur and Others

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhay and 5 Others vs Ram Jiyawan and Others

Executive Engineer Nirman KHAND-1,PUBLIC Works Deptt. Distt.Gonda vs Presiding Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner,Devipatan Division Distt. Gonda and 2 Others

M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Agarwal vs Ram Baran (dead) through his legal heir Thakur Prasad Yadav and Ors.