JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri R.B. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur. It appears from record that the father of the petitioner No. 2 had filed an application under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (paper No. 4-Ga) supported by an affidavit dated 2.12.2004 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 for allowing him to make payment of rent which was due since March, 2003 till December, 2004. An extract of khatauni was also filed by the father of the petitioner No. 2 on 8.5.2005 to establish that the property in dispute is not a waqf property but is owned by the State Government.
3. Sri Habib Ahmad, Advocate who is said to be the Secretary of the Hamidia Educational Society Waqf No. 128, Post Office Sadar, district Gorakhpur filed objections supported by affidavit inter alia that the application was not maintainable under Section 30(1) of the Act and is barred by Section 85 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. 16 of 1960. It was also objected that the authority had no jurisdiction in the matter as the property was waqf property and beyond the purview of the Act.
4. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 rejected the application of father of the petitioner No. 2 vide impugned order dated 10.5.2005 holding that the disputed property is waqf property, therefore, provisions of the Act are not applicable.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in this writ petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the disputed property under their tenancy is not waqf property and the court below has committed an illegality and error apparent on the face of record in not allowing the application for payment of arrears of rent.
7. Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is copy of the application under Section 30(1) of the Act filed by the petitioners for permission to deposit rent for the building as per particulars furnished therein. Entry No. 7 of the aforesaid application pertains to the name and address of the landlord and the petitioners have disclosed against it that Sri Habib Ahmad Advocate as alleged Secretary of Hamidia Educational Society Waqf No. 128, Post Office Sadar, district Gorakhpur. The Entry No. 7 is as under:
8. From the aforesaid description against Clause 7, it is evident that the petitioners have alleged Sri Habib Ahmad, Advocate to be the alleged Secretary of Hamidia Educational Society Waqf, registered at Serial Number 128 in the Waqf Board under Section 30 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. 16 of 1960.
9. The court below considered the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties in detail as under:
Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 58 esa ;g micfU/kr gS fd fdlh Lohd`r rF; dks lkfcr djuk vko';d ugha gSA vkosnu 4&x esa vkosnd us foi{kh gchc vgen ,MoksdsV dks Hkou Lohdkj fd;k gS] vr% izkFkZuki= 4&x esa of.kZr Hkou ds LikfeRo ds lanHkZ esa vkosnd }kjk fjTokbaMj 'kiFk&Ik= 151 ,oa izfr'kiFk&Ik= 27&x esa fd;k x;k dFku Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vkosnd }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk&Ik= 27&x ds lkFk vuqyXud&1 ds :I esa nkf[ky udy cSukek 27&[email protected] rk] 27&[email protected] ds vuq'khyu ls ik;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 1-10-01 dks foi{kh gchc vgen us gehfn;k oDQ fLFkr lEifRr ds eqroYyh rFkk lfpo gehfn;k oDQ ,twds'kuy lkslk;Vh oDQ ua0&128 xksj[kiqj dh gSfl;r esa oDQ ds mé;u gsrq edku dk foØ; lS¸;n 'kelqíhu iq= lS¸;n xQkj ds Ik{k esa fd;k gSA udy cSukek 27&[email protected] rk 27&[email protected] esa vuU; :Ik ls foØhr lEink gehfn; ,tqds'kuy lkslk;Vh oDQ ua0 128 xksj[kiqj ds :I esa vafdr fd;k x;k gSa foi{kh }kjk 'kiFk&Ik= 16&x ds lkFk vuqyXud ds :Ik esa nkf[ky dkxt la[;k 18&x udy drokl jftLVj gLc nQk&30 ;w0 ih0 eqfLye oDQ ,DV ua0 16 lu~ 1960 oDQ uEcj 128 xksj[kiqj dks mnwZ dk fgUnh #ikUrj gS ftlesa uEcj flyflyk 128 gehnqYykg ,twds'kuy lkslk;Vh oDQ ds uke vafdr ik;h tkrh gS ftlesa foi{k gchc vgen ,moksdsV ds lfpo ds :I esa ntZ n'kkZ;k x;k gSA dkxt la[;k 20&x ¼layXud&4½ mÙkj izns'k lqéh lsUVªy cksMZ vkQ oDQ y[kuÅ }kjk fuxZr izek.k&Ik= dh izfr gS ftlesa oDQ uEcj 128 xksj[kiqj dk vadu ik;k tkrk gSA vfHkys[kh; lk{; dkxt la[;k 18&x o 20&x esa fnukad 9-5-72 dh frfFk vafdr gS] vr% ;g ughas dgk tk ldrk fd nkSjku dk;Zokgh foi{kh us bu vfHkys[kksa dk fuekZ.k fd;k gSA vkosnd }kjk izLrqr udy [krkSuh ¼'kiFk&Ik= 27 ls vuqyXud&2½] 1404 Qlyh esa xkVk 126 fe0 jdck 2-395 gs0 dh Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj dh Hkwfe ds :Ik esa vafdr ik;k tkrk gSA mDr [krkSuh ds ifjorZu lEcfU/kr rkfydk ds vuq'khyu ls Li"V gS fd mDr [kkrs esa vkSj Hkh uEcj o jdck ntZ gS vkSsj dqy pkj xkVk jdck 8-239 gs0 vafdr ik;k tkrk gSA vU; 3 xkVk la[;k dkSu&dkSu ls gSa vkSj ftuds uke ls gSa ;g rF; 'kiFk&Ik= 27&x ds lkFk nkf[ky vuqyXud&2 udy [krkSuh ds vuq'khyu ls izekf.kr ugha gSA vuqyXud&3 udy [krkSuh izekf.kr djrh gS fd xkVk uEcj 126 fe0 ds jdck 0-795 gs0 dh Hkwfe lS¸;n 'kgkcqíhu ds uke vafdr gS ftldk gLrxr izdj.k esa dksbZ okLrk o ljksdkj ugha gSA
10. The Court after appraisal of evidence led by both the parties, held that:
--------------------U;k;ky; fdlh O;fDr dks mlds }kjk ;kfpdk vuqrks"k ls vfrfjDr vuqrks"k ugha iznku dj ldrh gSA izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x esa vkosnd us ekpZ] 2003 ls fnlEcj] 2004 rd dk fdjk;k tek djus dh ;kpuk dh gSA fnlEcj] 2004 ds ckn vxzsrj vof/k rd dk fdjk;k tek djus dh dksbZ ;kpuk vkosnd }kjk izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA ekpZ] 2003 ls fnlEcj] 2004 rd dk fdjk;k vkosnd us vius nkf;Ro ij U;k;ky; esa tek fd;k gSA bl vk/kkj ij vkosnd }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x dh mikns;rk lekIr gSA vkosnd }kjk izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x esa foi{kh dks yS.MykMZ ds :Ik esa Lohdk;Z fd;k x;k gS rFkk izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x izLrj&7 esa gehfn;k ,tqds'kuy lkslk;Vh oDQ uEcj 128 xksj[kiqj ds rF; dk mYys[k fd;k gSA izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x esa of.kZr Hkou oDQ dh lEifRr ds :I esa vkosnd }kjk 'kiFk&Ik= 27&x ds lkFk vuqyXud ds :Ik ess nkf[ky udy cSukek rFk foi{kh }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk&Ik= 27&x ds lkFk vuqyXud ds :I esa nkf'ky dkxt la[;k 17&x] 18&x] 19&x o 20&x ds vuq'khyu ls ifjyf{kr gSA fjTokbaMj 'kiFk&Ik= 15&x ds izLrj 13 esa vafdr dFku dh iqf"V fdlh vfHkys[k ls ugha gkrhA vkosnd ds firk dk fookfnr edku essaa fdjk;snkj gksus dk dksbZ lk{; Ik=kfor ugha gSA ;w0 ih0 vjcu fcfYMax ¼jsxqys'ku vkQ ysfVax] jsUV ,.M ,foD'ku½ ,DV] 1972 dh /kkjk 2¼ch½ esa of.kZr gS fd oDQ lEink ij mDr vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs] vr% mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30¼1½ ds rgr izLrqr izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x iks"k.kh; ugha gSA rn~uq#I mi;qZDr foospuk ds v/khu izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk&Ik= 4&x fujlr fd;k tkrk gSA okn rn~uqlkj fjLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Ik=koyh nkf[ky nrj gksA eqgj g0 vLi"V ¼jes'k dqekj ;kno½ flfoy tt] tq0 Mh0] xksj[kiqj 10-5-2005
11. From the records and the arguments advanced by counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the lower appellate court has rightly held that the Court cannot grant more relief than prayed for. In the application, the petitioners had prayed for permission to deposit rent from March, 2003 to December, 2004 and no relief has been prayed for permitting them to deposit rent after December, 2004 in the application. The rent for the period March, 2003 to December, 2004 has been deposited by the petitioners in Court on their own responsibility, as such, the application of the plaintiff (paper No. 4-Ga) has become infructuous. The petitioners have admitted the respondents as landlords. The property is waqf property which is apparent from the affidavit of the plaintiff (paper No. 27-Ga) and copy of the deed, as well as paper Nos. 17-Ga, 18-Ga, 19-Ga and 20-Ga and records of waqf property produced by it. The Court also found that there is no evidence, whatsoever, to the effect that the father of the petitioner No. 2 was ever a tenant and that provisions of the Act do not apply to waqf property and are barred by Section 2-B of the Act, hence the application filed by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Act is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
12. In view of the above facts, as stated above that the petitioners themselves, in their application have stated the property to be a waqf property only alleging that respondent No. 2 is alleged Secretary of the aforesaid waqf, they cannot be permitted to claim that the property, in dispute, is owned by the State Government on the basis of entry in khatauni. There are other plots also mentioned in the Khatauni and as has been found by the court below the registered waqf property cannot he said to be State property as the name of waqf is also on the Khatauni shows a part of the land/building in the name of the registered waqf.
13. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
14. The writ petition is dismissed No order as to costs.