Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 09.09.2005, passed in W.O.P.No.12 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai (Wakf Tribunal), the civil revision petitions have been preferred.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the waqf original petition.
3. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated as follows: 3.1. The petition Schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as ?the property?) has been purchased by the petitioners from the predecessors-in- title by way of two separate sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and the petitioners' Mosque is a religious institution in Madurai and the first respondent is a tenant in respect of the property having been inducted as a tenant by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the monthly rent is Rs.550/- payable on or before 5th of succeeding English calender month. The petitioners have purchased the property with a view to extend the building for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque. The first respondent has been attempting to purchase the property from the vendors of the petitioners' Mosque for his own benefit. However, the petitioners' Mosque have purchased the property. Further, inasmuch as the petitioners' Mosque purchased the same, the first respondent got disappointed and thereby decided to give pinpricks to the petitioners' Mosque and the first respondent filed a rent control original petition in R.C.O.P.No.219 of 1990 for depositing the rent into the Court and the same is pending. The Rent Control Act is not applicable to the petitioners' Mosque and as such the first respondent is liable to pay the rent from 28.03.1990 till the end of December, 1990, amounting to Rs.7,150/- and also damages for the use and occupation from January, 1991. The petitioners' Mosque decided to demolish the existing superstructure and erect a new construction annexing with the existing Mosque building. The first respondent is estopped in law from disputing the rights of the petitioners' Mosque and therefore, they sent a notice, on 25.11.1990, terminating the tenancy of the first respondent directing him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property on the expiry of December, 1990. To the same, the first respondent sent a reply, dated 12.12.1990, containing false and vexatious allegations. Hence, the waqf original petition.
3.2. Originally, the waqf original petition was filed as a suit, in O.S.No.1842 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, and after coming into effect of the Waqf Act, the above said suit was transferred to the file of the Principal Sub Court (Wakf Tribunal), Madurai and it was re-numbered as W.O.P.No.12 of 2000. The petitioners having been elected as the Managers of the petitioners' Mosque, they have been substituted in the name of the erstwhile Managers (Trustees). Inasmuch as the second respondent ? Waqf Board is a necessary party to the proceedings, where the waqf property is involved, it has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings.
4. The averments contained in the written statement filed by the first respondent are briefly stated as follows:
4.1. The waqf original petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The property is a private Trust property belonging to one Malli Nagalakshmi Ammal and she had executed a registered Will, dated 11.06.1972, creating a Trust called ?Malli Gurumurthi Trust? and her sons are the Trustees of the said Trust and they have no power to alienate the property and they have to perform the Trust from and out of the income derived from the property. The Trustees have not obtained permission from the Court to sell the property. The petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property. The first respondent has been inducted as a tenant in the property on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- and the tenancy is as per the English Calender month. The rent was subsequently enhanced and the present monthly rent is Rs.550/-. The first respondent entered into a sale agreement, dated 03.01.1968, with the Trustees and paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards advance and the Trustees had also agreed to seek permission from the Court to sell the property to the first respondent. However, they did not obtain any permission from the Court and on the other hand, they produced a copy of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.290 of 1989, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai and the said Judgment and Decree are collusive and not binding upon the first respondent and the first respondent was shocked to note that the Will, dated 11.06.1972, was not given effect to and the first respondent sent a notice, dated 12.02.1990, to the Trustees directing them to obtain permission from the Court to sell the property in his favour as per the sale agreement entered into between them and to the same, a reply, dated 21.03.1990, has been sent by the Trustees containing false allegations. Hence, the first respondent filed a suit, in O.S.No.469 of 1990, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, for the recovery of the advance amount with interest, against the erstwhile Trustees and the said suit had been decreed on 24.09.1992. Meanwhile, one S.R.Ramamoorthy filed O.P.No.13 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, seeking permission to take legal proceedings against the plaintiffs of the said suit since the erstwhile Trustees have no right to sell the property in favour of the petitioners as the property is a Trust property. Since there was a dispute between the parties, the first respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.219 of 1990 seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court and he has been depositing the rent in the Court as such and there is no arrears of rent. The first respondent never informed the petitioners that he would vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property. The Rent Control Act is applicable and hence, the suit laid by the petitioners is not maintainable. The petitioners are not going to demolish the existing superstructure and construct a new building in the property as stated by them and the first respondent is not estopped from questioning the right of the petitioners to institute the suit. The first respondent is not liable to handover the vacant possession of the property to the petitioners. To the notice sent by the petitioners, the first respondent sent a due reply containing true facts and hence, the suit preferred by the petitioners is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief as prayed for and there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit laid by them is liable to be dismissed.
5. The averments contained in the additional written statement filed by the first respondent are briefly stated as follows:
5.1. The Civil Court alone has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the property in question is not a waqf property and hence, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no dedication of the property as per the Muslim Law for any pious, religious or charitable purpose. The petitioners must obtain the consent of the Waqf Board before instituting the waqf original petition and the petitioners are not entitled to purchase the property from the erstwhile owners without the sanction of the second respondent and the necessary formalities for purchasing the property with the second respondent have not been complied with. The petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the petition and hence, the petition preferred by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
6. The statement of objections put forth by the second respondent ? Waqf Board in brief are as follows:
6.1. It is true that the property has been purchased for valuable consideration under two separate registered sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and the property is a waqf property and it is under the control of the petitioners' Mosque and also under the supervisory control of the second respondent. The Rent Control Act is not applicable. It is true that the petitioners decided to demolish the existing superstructure and construct a new construction in the property for the welfare of the worshippers and hence, the petition is liable to be ordered as prayed for by the petitioners.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed in the waqf original petition:
i. Whether the first respondent is liable to handover the vacant possession of the property in favour of the petitioners?
ii. Whether the first respondent is liable to pay the entire arrears of rent amounting to Rs.7,150/- to the petitioners in respect of the property? iii. Whether the first respondent is liable to pay damages to the petitioners in respect of the property from January 1991 onwards till the handing over of the vacant possession of the property? iv. Whether the waqf original petition is maintainable or not? v. Whether the first respondent is estopped from disputing the title of the property?
vi. To what other reliefs?
8. In support of the petitioners' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P21 have been marked and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R1 and R2 have been marked.
9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Wakf Tribunal was pleased to allow the petition in favour of the petitioners as prayed in all respects excepting the prayer sought for by the petitioners for a direction to the first respondent to pay the damages at the rate that may be fixed by the Tribunal for the period from January, 1991 till the handing over of the vacant possession of the property concerned to the petitioners. It is found that the Wakf Tribunal, as regards the above issue, directed the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.550/- per month from January, 1991 till the handing over of the vacant possession of the property concerned to the petitioners.
10. The first respondent being aggrieved over the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal has preferred C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.27 of 2006. The petitioners being aggrieved over the quantum of damages fixed at Rs.550/- per month from January, 1991 onwards till the vacant possession of the property concerned is surrendered, have preferred C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.895 of 2006.
11. The following points arise for consideration in the present civil revision petitions:
i. Whether the property belonged to the petitioners' Mosque? ii. Whether the petitioners' Mosque are entitled to seek for the possession of the property concerned from the first respondent as prayed for?
iii. Whether the petitioners' Mosque are entitled to for a direction to the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,150/- towards the arrears of rent from 28.03.1990 till December, 1990.
iv. Whether the petitioners' Mosque are entitled to seek for damages from the first respondent for the use and occupation of the property concerned at the rate that may be fixed by the Court for the period from January 1991 till the surrender of the vacant possession of the property concerned? v. Whether the order of the Wakf Tribunal in fixing the quantum of damages for the use and occupation of the property concerned by the first respondent in a sum of Rs.550/- from January, 1991 onwards till the handing over of the vacant possession of the property is correct?
vi. Whether the Wakf Tribunal is having jurisdiction to try and determine the issues involved in the matter or whether only the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to try and determine the issues involved in the matter?
vii. To what relief, the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.27 of 2006 is entitled to? and viii. To what relief the petitioners in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.895 of 2006 are entitled to?
POINT NO.VI:
12. Claiming that the property involved in the matter belonged to the petitioners' Mosque and putting forth a case that the first respondent is a tenant in respect of the property and inasmuch as the first respondent has not paid the rent for the property from 28.03.1990 onwards to the petitioners' Mosque, according to the petitioners, they have terminated the tenancy of the first respondent by issuance of a notice, dated 25.11.1990, with the end of December, 1990 and in such view of the matter, according to the petitioners' Mosque, as the first respondent had not complied with the demand made in the above said notice and on the other hand, chosen to repudiate the demand by sending a false notice, dated 12.12.1990, according to the petitioners' Mosque, it has been necessitated to lay the suit against the first respondent for appropriate reliefs as detailed above.
13. Per contra, it is the case of the first respondent that the property does not belong to the petitioners' Mosque and the petitioners' Mosque have no right, title or interest in the property and the alleged vendors of the property in favour of the petitioners' Mosque have also no right, title or interest in the property so as to entitling them to convey the property in favour of the petitioners' Mosque and the property is a private Trust property and the first respondent had endeavoured to purchase the property from the erstwhile owners under the sale agreement, dated 03.01.1968, and in any event, as the vendors and the petitioners' Mosque have no right, title or interest in the property as such and there is no arrears of rent as put forth by the petitioners' Mosque, it is the case of the first respondent that the petitioners' Mosque is not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs sought for in the petition. Further, according to the first respondent, the property is not a waqf property and hence, only the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to determine the issues involved in the matter and the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to settle the issues and therefore, the matter could not have been disposed of by the Wakf Tribunal.
14. The Waqf Board arrayed as the second respondent in the matter has taken a plea that the property had been purchased by the petitioners' Mosque for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque by way of two separate sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990 and hence, the property is a waqf property and it is under the supervisory control of the Waqf Board as such and inasmuch as the first respondent is liable to pay the rent to the petitioners' Mosque and not paid the rent and committed default, is not entitled to remain in the property and hence, it is stated that the suit be decreed as prayed for by the petitioners' Mosque.
15. In the light of the defence taken by the first respondent in this matter, it is very clearly seen that the first respondent has disputed the character of the property involved in this matter, particularly, alleging that the property is not a waqf property and that the petitioners' Mosque have no right, title or interest in the property and he has also taken a plea that even the vendors of the petitioners' Mosque have no right, title or interest in the property as, according to him, the property is a private Trust property and cannot be alienated without the prior sanction of the Court and further, according to him, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the lis and it is only the Civil Court, which is competent to try and determine the issues involved in the matter and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition preferred by the petitioners' Mosque. In such view of the defence put forth by the first respondent and when according to the petitioners' Mosque the property belonged to the petitioners' Mosque having purchased the same by virtue of two separate sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, from the erstwhile owners for the benefit of the Mosques and the same being a waqf property, according to the petitioners' Mosque, they are entitled to maintain the petition before the Wakf Tribunal and considering the issues involved in the matter, particularly, the character of the property as to whether it is a property belonging to the petitioners' Mosque i.e., waqf property or not, which should be determined only by the Wakf Tribunal, after the advent of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?) and in the light of the acceptance of the case of the petitioners' Mosque by the Wakf Board (i.e., the second respondent), it is stated that the Wakf Tribunal is competent to try and determine the issues involved in the matter and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the issues involved in the matter in view of Section 85 of the Act.
16. Section 85 of the Act reads as follows:
?85. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court, Revenue Court and another authority. ? No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any (Civil Court, revenue court and any other authority] in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any [waqf], [waqf] property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.?
17. A perusal of the same would go to show that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Civil Court, Revenue Court and any other Authority in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf property. Therefore, when the main issue involved in this lis is as to whether the property in dispute is the waqf property and belonged to the petitioners' Mosque or not and when the same has been raised by the first respondent, it is found prima facie that as rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners' Mosque, the Civil Court may not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis as such.
18. That apart, it is found that though the present suit has been originally instituted in the Civil Court, after the advent of the Act, it is found that the suit had been transferred to the Wakf Tribunal and re-numbered and thereby, the Wakf Tribunal took up the matter and determined the issues involved in this lis.
19. In view of the above said rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, at the foremost, the issue to be determined is whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the lis or only the Civil Court has got the competency to entertain the lis.
20. In support of the contention that considering the reliefs sought for by the petitioners' Mosque in the matter, particularly, the eviction of the first respondent from the property on the ground that his tenancy has been terminated by virtue of the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioners' Mosque, such suit should be filed before the Civil Court and not before the Wakf Tribunal and with reference to the said point, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent placed reliance upon the decisions reported in CDJ 2010 SC 757 : (2010) 6 MLJ 526 (SC) [Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf] and CDJ 2013 SC 786 : 2013-5- L.W.295 [Bhanwar Lal & another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others]. No doubt, a perusal of the above cited decisions would go to show that as regards the dispute regarding eviction of tenant in occupation of the waqf property, it has been held that only the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute and not the Wakf Tribunal. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners' Mosque, it is found that all the above said decisions have been rendered prior to the amendment of Section 83 of the Act by virtue of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2013, which came into force with effect from 01.11.2013. After the above said amendment, Section 83(1) of the Act reads as follows:
?(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals.?
21. Therefore, a perusal of the above said provision of law would go to disclose that the Wakf Tribunal with effect from the date of amendment has got the jurisdiction to determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or a waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee of such property under the Act. Therefore, strongly, placing reliance upon the above said provision of law, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners' Mosque that though originally the eviction of the tenant from the waqf property may not fall within the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal as such, considering the fact and the position of law prevailing with effect from 01.11.2013 onwards that the Wakf Tribunal has the competency to try such disputes also as adumbrated under Section 83(1) of the Act, it is his contention that considering the fact that the above said amendment has been carried out in Section 83 (1) of the Act i.e., with effect from 01.11.2013, the present lis having been transferred to the Wakf Tribunal from the Civil Court pursuant to the advent of the Waqf Act and as per the Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and particularly, when the lis has not come to an end as such i.e., still being agitated in this Court by way of the present revision proceedings, according to him, the Court should take into account the amendment, which had been incorporated in the Act with effect from 01.11.2013 and hold that the determination of the issues by the Wakf Tribunal is proper and correct and in other words, according to him, the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction and competency to try and determine the issues involved in the matter and in this connection, the learned counsel placed a high reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2016 SC 381 [Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust vs. Magnum Developers]. Further, according to him, considering the scope of the issues involved in this lis, particularly, as to the determination of the character of the property involved in the matter whether it is a waqf property or not as raised by the first respondent, according to him, even prior to the amendment brought into the Act with effect from 01.11.2013, in the light of the above said issue also, the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction and competency to entertain the lis and in this connection, he placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2005-1-L.W.676 [I.Salam Khan vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board rep.by its Chairman and others] and (2006) 4 MLJ 1800 [V.S.B.Sikkandar vs. K.M.Khader Gani and another].
22. As already adverted to, the first respondent has taken up a specific issue that the property does not belong to the petitioners' Mosque and it is not a waqf property and therefore, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the lis. On the other hand, according to the petitioners' Mosque, the property belonged to it and the same is a waqf property purchased for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and therefore, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, it is only the Wakf Tribunal, who has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Act as it stood before the amendments were brought into the Act by virtue of the Wakf Amendment Act, 2013, on a harmonious reading of the
Sections 6,7,83 and
84 of the Act, it could be seen that considering the issues raised in the matter, particularly, as to whether the property in dispute is a waqf property or not, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the lis.
23. That apart, in the light of the amendments brought into the Act, with effect from 01.11.2013, particularly, to the
Section 83 of the Act, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the issues involved in the matter even with reference to the eviction of the tenant or the determination of the rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee of the property in dispute under the Act. Therefore, it is seen that inasmuch as the lis has not come to a finality and it is at the stage of the revision before this Court and meanwhile the Act having been amended and when it is found that the tenancy issue could also be sorted out by the Wakf Tribunal as per the amendment introduced in the Act, it is seen that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the lis. In this connection the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 381 [Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust vs. Magnum Developers] has held that by virtue of the amendment, the composition of the Tribunal has been enlarged and further, it has also been duly held that the amendment has been introduced only for making improvements in the functioning of the Tribunal with the help of the two more members in the Tribunal and further, it has also been held that till the Tribunal as contemplated under the amendment is constituted, one member Tribunal will continue to exercise the jurisdiction as done at present and so holding it has held that the one member Tribunal exercising jurisdiction shall not cease to exist even though the new Tribunal as contemplated under the Amendment Act has not been constituted by the Government. In the above decision, the Apex Court has further held as follows:
?25. From perusal of the statement of objects and reasons, it reveals that the single member of the Tribunal was working fin under the Waqf Act, 1995 (before 2013 amendment). The idea of expanding the composition by the 2013 Amendment seems to make improvement in the functioning of the Tribunal with the help of two more members in the Tribunal.
26. Even by the 2013 amendment, in
Section 85 of the Act, they have also ousted the jurisdiction of the revenue court or any other authorities along with the civil court. Meaning thereby the legislatures wanted to make sure that no authorities apart from the Tribunal constituted under
Section 83 of the Act shall determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property under this Act. ....
....
39. Mr.L.Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Wakf Board, has rightly contended that the intention of the Parliament while substituting
Section 83(4) is not that one member tribunal vanishes or ceases to exist till a three member tribunal is constituted. Intention to bring new sub- section (4) in
Section 83 is nothing but improvement in the constitution of the Tribunal and both the earlier and the substituted sub-sections are not inconsistent with each other.
40. Having regard to the law discussed hereinbefore and giving out anxious consideration in the matter, we are of the definite opinion that the High Court has committed serious error of law in holding that after the Amendment Act, 2013 came into force, the one member Tribunal exercising jurisdiction ceased to exist even though a fresh notification constituting three member Tribunal has not been notified. The High Court further erred in law in directing the Civil Court to decide the disputes in respect of waqf property ?
24. It is, therefore, found that in the light of the above said decision of the Apex Court, the present Wakf Tribunal consisting of a single member is authorised to hear all disputes as contemplated under Section 83(1) of the Act.
25. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the amendment introduced with effect from 01.11.2013 shall have only a prospective operation and inasmuch as the present suit has been laid prior to the same, the lis determined by the Wakf Tribunal is without jurisdiction and therefore, the matter has to be remitted to the Civil Court for fresh adjudication. However, as pointed out earlier, considering the nature of the lis involved, particularly, the defence put forth by the first respondent challenging the character of the property as not being the waqf property and the same being not accepted by the petitioners' Mosque and on the other hand, contending that it is only a waqf property and that apart, the second respondent admitting in black and white that the suit property is only a waqf property purchased by the petitioners' Mosque for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and the suit is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal, it could been seen that even prior to the amendment brought into the Act with effect from 01.11.2013, the Wakf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in such view of the matter, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the determination of the lis by the Wakf Tribunal is against the Act and only the Civil Court is entitled to adjudicate the issues involved in the suit as such cannot be accepted.
26. In the light of the above reasons, I hold that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the lis and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the lis. Accordingly, Point No.VI is answered.
POINT NOS.I to III:
27. The petitioners' Mosque has laid the suit on the footing that it had purchased the suit property by virtue of two separate sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, from the erstwhile owners. The first respondent has raised a dispute that the property is a private Trust property and bequeathed it to the Trust by virtue of the Will, dated 11.06.1972, said to have been executed by Malli Nagalakshmi Ammal and therefore, it is his case that the alienation of the property to the petitioners' Mosque by the erstwhile owners is invalid and would not confer title to the petitioners' Mosque. However, as rightly, determined by the Court below as regards the creation of the private Trust by virtue of the Will said to have been executed by Nagalakshmi Ammal, there is no material forthcoming on the part of the first respondent. It has not been established that the Trust had as such come into existence and thereby the property had assumed the character of the trust property. Therefore, it is found that the property belonged to the erstwhile owners by virtue of the proceedings initiated in O.S.No.290 of 1989 and from the documents pertaining to the same, it is found that the Trust projected by the first respondent had not come into existence at all and only the erstwhile owners of the property had title to the same and accordingly, they had alienated the property in favour of the petitioners' Mosque under the sale deeds, dated 28.03.1990, which are marked as Exs.P1 and P2. As already adverted to, even the second respondent has admitted that the property is purchased only for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and the same is a waqf property. A perusal of Exs.P1 and P2 would go to show that the consideration for the sale transaction had been passed only by the petitioners' Mosque and therefore, it is found that the property belonged to the petitioners' Mosque.
28. No doubt, there is no reference about the suit property in the proforma marked as Ex.P13 and by the same, as rightly, discussed by the Court below, it cannot be held that the suit property does not belong to the petitioners' Mosque. Still, the argument is put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in the absence of the registration of the property as waqf property under the Act, the petitioners as such cannot maintain the suit portraying the property as waqf property. However, as rightly, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the non-registration of the property as waqf property as contemplated under the Act would not by itself render the purchase under Exs.P1 and P2 invalid and when materials have been placed to evidence that the property has been purchased only for the benefit of the petitioners' Mosque and further, when the petitioners' Mosque had also come to be registered with the Waqf Board as per Ex.P20 and the Muthavallies have also been nominated as per the proceedings marked as Ex.P21 and merely, the non-reference of the property in the proforma by itself would not render the sale transaction under Exs.P1 and P2 invalid. It is, therefore, found that the suit property as such is only the property belonging to the petitioners' Mosque and the waqf property as admitted by the second respondent also and therefore, it is found that the lis preferred by the petitioners' Mosque is valid and also maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. As adverted to above, though the first respondent has raised various contentions disputing the character of the property claiming the same to be the private Trust property, as regards the case put forth by him, when there is no material at all to substantiate the same and on the other hand, when the first respondent himself has admitted that he has been inducted as a tenant only by the erstwhile owners and not by the Trust as such and when the first respondent has also initiated rent control proceedings as against the erstwhile owners and the petitioners' Mosque, it could be seen that the first respondent is not sure about his case or defence and accordingly, admitting the tile of the petitioners' Mosque, he is also found to have impleaded the petitioners' Mosque in the rent control proceedings. As seen from the materials, the rent control proceedings preferred by the first respondent have been negatived and there is also no material to evidence that the first respondent has deposited the rent before the Rent Control Authority as claimed by him.
29. The case of the first respondent that he has endeavoured to purchase the property based upon the agreement of sale marked as Ex.P3 also found to be not established or substantiated in any manner and when it is found that the vendors of the petitioners' Mosque had full title to the property and accordingly, when it is found that they have conveyed the property in favour of the petitioners' Mosque, as rightly determined by the Court below, the property is owned only by the petitioners' Mosque and that it has the absolute right to the property.
30. In such view of the position, the first respondent claiming only the tenancy right and when it is found that the petitioners' Mosque have title to the property and the first respondent also had not evinced any interest to pay the rent to the petitioners' Mosque since the date of purchase by the petitioners' Mosque, it is found that the petitioners' Mosque had duly and validly determined the tenancy of the first respondent and accordingly, laid the suit for recovery of possession.
31. In the light of the above factors, I hold that the property involved in the lis belonged to the petitioners' Mosque and I further hold that the petitioners' Mosque is entitled to recover the possession of the property from the first respondent and also entitled to claim the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.550/- from the date of purchase till the end of December, 1990 and accordingly, Point Nos.I to III are answered in favour of the petitioners' Mosque.
POINT NOS:IV & V:
32. The Wakf Tribunal has also held that considering the facts and circumstances that the petitioners' Mosque is entitled to receive damages at the rate of Rs.550/- per month from the first respondent from January, 1991 till the delivery of possession to the petitioners' Mosque. The petitioners' Mosque though filed C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.895 of 2006 impugning the said portion of the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioners' Mosque has fairly admitted that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal towards the damages for use and occupation since January, 1991 is correct and further, he has also not placed any material to vary from the above said quantum fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I hold that the first respondent is liable to pay the damages for the use and occupation of the property at the rate of Rs.550/- per month as determined by the Tribunal from January, 1991 till the delivery of the possession to the petitioners' Mosque and the said finding of the Wakf Tribunal is perfectly correct. Accordingly, Point Nos.IV and V are answered.
POINT NOS.VII & VIII:
33. In view of the above discussions, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 09.09.2005, passed in W.O.P.No.12 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, are confirmed and resultantly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
.