IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31924 of 2014 BETWEEN Mohd. Taharuddin.
... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MT. GHORI Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner, who has taken the premises, in question, on rent from the second respondent, has suffered an eviction order vide R.C.No.83 of 2013 dated 24.09.2014 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner has now turned round and contends that the second respondent is not the owner of the property and property is, in fact, a wakf property. Petitioner raised that contention in the rent control case where issue No.1 was framed and answered against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller. Petitioner now seeks a Mandamus to declare the said order as illegal on the ground that there is exemption in favour of wakf properties under Section 26 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
3. For more than one reasons including the provision of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord. Having, admittedly, taken the property on rent from the second respondent, the petitioner is, therefore, estopped in law from questioning his title. Moreover, whether the property is a wakf property or not already stands considered and rejected by the order of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.1.
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to question the order of the learned Rent Controller in a collateral manner by filing the present writ petition. Apparently, the present writ petition is filed to claim the tenanted premises under petitioner’s tenancy, as a wakf property to avoid the effect of the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and this Court cannot extend its assistance to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 27, 2014 DSK