Remanded

Punjab Wakf Board v. Inder Mohan and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2023CR/2519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging a Tribunal order in a suit for injunction against a Wakf Board. The Court held that tenants holding over cannot be forcibly evicted by force and direction was issued that respondents cannot be evicted except in due course of law, treating earlier discussion on the Amendment Act as obiter.

What did the court decide?

Direction that plaintiff-respondents in possession under Wakf Board would not be evicted except in due course of law.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Inder Mohan and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

256-2 CR No.2519 of 2018 Date of Decision : 27.02.2023 Punjab Wakf Board ....Petitioner

¶3

VERSUS

¶4

Inder Mohan and Another ....Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶6

Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the respondents.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶9

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal (constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995), Kapurthala.

¶10

The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction for restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the premises measuring 66.666 sq. yards as fully described in the plaint. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondents were inducted as lessees in the suit property by executing a lease deed dated 03.05.2011 w.e.f. 01.02.2008. It was further averred that the plaintiff-respondents were inducted @ Rs.500/- per month and since 01.02.2008 they are in continuous possession of the suit property. It was the stand taken that the plaintiffrespondents have been regularly paying the lease money to the defendantpetitioner but the defendant-petitioner has not accepted the lease money after 2014. It was averred that though there is a specific bar created vide the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 for leasing out the property without the permission

¶11

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.03.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶12

CR No.2519 of 2018

¶13

-2-

¶14

of the Board, however, proviso to Section 51 of the Wakf Act carves out an exception, which reads as under :

¶15

“Provided that no mosque, dargah, khanqah, graveyard, or imambara shall be leased except any unused graveyards in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh where such graveyard has been leased out before the date of commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013.”

¶16

The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner on the ground that after the amendment of the Wakf Act, 1995 vide the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, the lease deeds have to be executed strictly as per the provisions of the amended Act and the Rules thereunder and as per Rule 18(1), no lease agreement shall contain a clause providing for automatic renewal. The relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was further pleaded that after the expiry of the lease the status of the plaintiff-respondent is that of an encroacher. Replication was filed reiterating the averments

¶17

made in the plaint and controverting those made in the written statement.

¶18

On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed :

¶19

Whether plaintiffs are in possession of suit property as alleged ? OPP

¶20

If issue no.1 is proved, whether the nature of the said possession of the plaintiffs becomes as encroacher as stated by the defendant in their written statement ? OPD

¶21

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.03.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶22

CR No.2519 of 2018

¶23

-3-

¶24

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

¶25

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP

¶26

5 . Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

¶27

Whether suit is bad for non-service of notice under section 89 of Wakf Act, 1995 ? OPD

¶28

Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts from the Court, if so, its affect ? OPD

¶29

Relief.

¶30

Vide judgment dated 01.09.2017 the suit was decreed.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend

¶33

that the lease deed had no automatic renewal clause as is apparent from a perusal of the lease order. It is further the contention that after the coming into force of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 there could be no leasing out of the property without the prior permission of the Board and that the status of the plaintiff-respondents was that of encroacher. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would further contend that the only ground on which the suit has been decreed is that it was not shown to the Court as to whether the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 was retrospective or prospective

¶34

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.03.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶35

CR No.2519 of 2018

¶36

-4-

¶37

in nature. It is submitted that no finding qua the applicability of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 was warranted in a simpliciter suit for injunction.

¶38

Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 is not retrospective in nature and hence would not apply to the lease deed in favour of the plaintiffrespondents. It is submitted that since the plaintiff-respondents are a lessee the defendant-petitioner cannot forcibly evict them from the suit property.

¶39

Heard.

¶40

In the present case admittedly the plaintiff-respondents were inducted as a lessee in the suit property and are in possession thereof. The Wakf Board would always have the right to eject the plaintiff-respondents in accordance with law. Even though the plaintiff-respondents may be a tenant holding over but they cannot be ejected by force and due procedure would have to be followed. It is trite that no injunction can be granted in favour of a tenant for restraining the landlord from evicting the tenant. However, at the same time, a tenant cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law as applicable.

¶41

In the present case, the plaintiff-respondents having been found to being in possession of the suit property, the core issue of granting protection to the plaintiff-respondents can be decided without going into the question as to whether the provisions of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 would be applicable or not. The Tribunal has on an appreciation of the evidence on the record passed the impugned order in favour of the plaintiffrespondents. No illegality or irregularity in the final relief granted is made out.

¶42

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.03.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶43

CR No.2519 of 2018

¶44

-5-

¶45

However, keeping in view the discussion by the Tribunal on the applicability or inapplicability of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, the instant revision petition is disposed off with a direction that the plaintiffrespondents, who are in possession of the suit property under the Wakf Board, would not be evicted therefrom except in due course of law. The discussion in the impugned order regarding the applicability or inapplicability of the provisions of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 is held to be obiter dicta and the question is left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings.

¶46

Disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶47

off.

¶48

27.02.2023 jk

¶49

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶50

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶51

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.03.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

Punjab Wakf Board v. Inder Mohan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Wakf Board v. Inder Mohan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Kaur & Anr. Vs Palwinder Singh & Ors.

Harjinder Singh Vs Hardev Singh and Others

Sabina and Others Vs Mohd. Naseem and Others

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Sneh Lata and Anr.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Satish Gupta and Anr.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Shubam Manchanda and Anr.