I.P. Sanjay S/o Late I.P. Vijayan; I.P. Sabeesh; Shamala Vijayan v. Hassan Koya K.; Ahamed P.K.; I.P. Shibil; Kerala State Wakf Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2017 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1939 CRP(WAKF).No.325 of 2017 -----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 13/2015 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 22-04-2017 ## REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS NO. 1,2 & 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 I.P.SANJAY,S/O. LATE I.P.VIJAYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, "SANGEETH" MUTHAPPAN KAVU ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2 I.P. SABEESH, S/O. LATE I.P.VIJAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, "SANGEETH",MUTHAPPAN KAVU ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. - 3 SHAMALA VIJAYAN W/O. LATE I.P.VIJAYAN, AGED 67 YEARS, "SANGEETH",MUTHAPPAN KAVU ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.P.B.SAJITH SMT.M.MANJU ## RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANT NO.3: ---------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. HASSAN KOYA.K S/O. LATE C.N. IMBICH MAMMU, AGED 73 YEARS, SECRETARY, INDISHAROOL ISLAM COMMITTEE, HIMAYATHUL ISLAM SABHA, SILK STREET, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 001. ## 2. AHAMMED P.K. S/O. MOIDU HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS, PRESIDENT, INDISHAROOL ISLAM COMMITTEE,HIMAYATHUL ISLAM SABHA, SILK STREET, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 3. I.P. SHIBIL - S/O. LATE I.P. VIJAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, "SANGEETH", MUTHAPPAN KAVU ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 4. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017. R4 BY SRI.SHIBILI NAHA, STANDING COUNSEL THIS CRP (WAKF) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. ========================== C.R.P. (Wakf). No.325 OF 2017** **==========================** Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2017 ## **ORDER** _Ravikumar, J._ This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 22.4.2017 in O.S.No.13 of 2015 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The petitioners herein were defendants 1, 2 and 4 therein and they are the children of late Sri.I.P.Vijayan. The 3[rd] defendant is also his son. The property in question was taken on lease by said Sri.I.P Vijayan on 1.9.1979 as per Ext.A1 lease deed dated 1.9.1979. After his death, defendants 1 to 4 continued with its possession as tenants under the wakf and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was being paid as monthly rent, going by the averments in the plaint. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs therein. It was further averred therein that the plaint schedule building and properties comprised in **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 2 R.S.No.9-6-204-205 in Nagaram Village are properties of the wakf namely, Indisharool Islam Committee. The said wakf is registered with the Wakf Board with Reg.No.4514/RA. It is also averred in the plaint that the petitioners herein had paid rent up to and inclusive of the month of March, 2013 and thereafter, they had committed default in payment of rent and it is remaining in arrears. Further, it is contended therein that the plaint schedule property is required by the wakf and therefore, the petitioners herein were requested to vacate the premises. On their failure to surrender the leased out properties, a lawyer notice was issued to the petitioners/defendants 1, 2 and 4, on 1.4.2014 and their tenancy was thus terminated. Essentially, the contention is that the continued occupation of the premises by the petitioners/defendants 1, 2 and 4 after 1.4.2014 amounts to unauthorised occupation and therefore, their status is only that of encroachers. The suit was filed taking up such contentions and claiming damages for use and occupation of the properties. Towards damages, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was claimed and it was also stated therein that the rate of rent prevailing in the locality, for **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 3 similar accommodation, is Rs.15,000/-. A direction to defendants 1, 2 and 4 to surrender plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs was sought for. A decree directing defendants 1, 2 and 4 to pay Rs.39,000/- as arrears of rent for the period from March 2013 to 31.3.2014 and a decree for directing defendants 1, 2 and 4 to pay the damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the building from 1.4.2014 onwards, were also sought for. 2. Petitioners and the third respondent herein who were respectively defendants 1, 2, 4 and 3 therein filed a joint written statement admitting the fact that they are in occupation of the plaint schedule property as tenants. At the same time, they took up a contention that the plaint schedule property is not a wakf property. It is their further contention that the plaint schedule property was entrusted to them only in the year 1974 and not on 1.9.1979 and going by the agreement, enhancement of rent is permissible only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. In the written statement, they had admitted the fact that they were paying rent only @ Rs.3,000/- per month till June 2013. Though they had attempted to pay rent thereafter, it was **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 4 not accepted by the plaintiffs, it was averred. They further pleaded thus:- The plaintiffs are in possession of similar godowns in the area other than the building in question. They had not leased out a portion of the plaint schedule property to strangers and that the tenancy was not terminated by the issuance of the lawyer notice by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not entitled to damages for the continued occupation of the plaint schedule property. The intention of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein is to sell the plaint schedule property to third parties for exorbitant amount after evicting the defendants. 3 _._ The fourth respondent Wakf Board supported the case of the plaintiffs by filing a written statement carrying the following pleadings:- The plaintiff is a wakf registered with the Wakf Board and the plaint schedule property is a property registered in the wakf register kept by the Board in terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act. In terms of the provisions under section 56 of the Wakf Act, the mutawalli is not entitled to execute a deed creating lease of the immovable properties exceeding one year. According to them, the **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 5 defendants therein viz., petitioners and the third respondent had been in occupation of the building for several decades against the provisions of the Wakf Act. They are not entitled to occupy the building as their tenancy was terminated by the plaintiffs and therefore, they are encroachers as defined under section 3(ee) of the Wakf Act. Since the property is registered with the Wakf Board, it is exempted from the purview of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the tenancy of wakf buildings could be terminated by giving a notice as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs have complied with all the legal formalities as stipulated in the Transfer of Property Act. 4. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal had framed the following issues for consideration:- - (1) Whether the plaint schedule property is a wakf property? - (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the shop room? - (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent and any amount towards damages for use and occupation of the shop room? - (4) What is the order as to reliefs and costs? **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 6 5. On the side of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein, the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were got marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced by the petitioners and the third respondent herein/defendants therein. The Tribunal jointly considered issues 1 to 3 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as per judgment dated 22.4.2017. It is challenging the said judgment that the captioned revision petition has been filed. 6. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that against such an order passed by the Tribunal, no appeal is provided under section 83(9) of the Wakf Act and the proviso thereunder provides for revision. Bearing in mind the scope of revisional power, we will consider the question whether the order under challenge invites interference in exercise of the revisional power. 7. Going by the impugned judgment, defendants 1 to 4 had conceded the position that their predecessor had obtained possession of the plaint schedule property from the Mutawalli, as per Ext.A1. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 7 revision petitioners had not conceded thus and their precise case is that the plaint schedule properties are not wakf properties and further submitted that the title of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein is also disputed. In the circumstances obtained in this case, it is only apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others** (AIR 1976 SC 2335). The applicability of the said decision is to be looked into in the light of their admission that they are tenants of the scheduled building and properties. The question is whether they can deny the title of the land lord in such circumstances. It was held in **Sri Ram Pasricha'** s case that under the general law, in a suit between landlord and the tenant, the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. Furthermore, it was held that in view of section 116 of the Evidence Act, a tenant could not deny the title of the landlord. 8. A close scrutiny of the case of the petitioners and the third respondent herein viz., defendants therein would reveal that they had virtually admitted the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. This is evident from the case set up by the petitioners herein **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 8 through the written statement. A copy of the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.13/2015 was made available for our perusal. It contains an averment to the effect that the plaint schedule property was entrusted to them in the year 1974 and that they were paying rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from 2002 onwards till June 2013 and thereafter, though they have attempted to pay the rent, it was not accepted by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein with an intention to got them evicted from the tenanted premises. Evidently, the Tribunal took note of the aforesaid crucial facts. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the defendants/revision petitioners herein took up a further contention that the intention of the plaintiffs is to sell the plaint schedule property to third parties for exorbitant amount by evicting them. The very contention taken up by the revision petitioners herein that they had paid rent from 2002 onwards till June 2013 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and thereafter it was not accepted by the plaintiffs though they attempted to effect payment itself would reveal that they were admitting the fact that the property belongs to the wakf and it is their landlord. If they **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 9 are doubtful of the title of the plaintiffs over the property, definitely, they would not have attributed that the intention of the plaintiffs is to sell the property to the third parties for exorbitant amount. As noticed hereinbefore, the revision petitioners/the defendants therein did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal. In other words, though they made a feeble attempt through the written statement, they did not even attempt to establish such contentions. In fact, in the circumstances and in the light of the evidence on record and above all, in view of **Sri Ram Pasricha'** s case, no weight could be given to the contention raised by the revision petitioners. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the defendants/revision petitioners conceded the aforesaid aspects. When once it is found that the plaint schedule properties are wakf properties and taking into consideration the specific stand of the fourth respondent Wakf Board that these properties are already registered with the Wakf Board and included in the wakf register under section 37 of the Wakf Act, it has to be taken that the said properties are exempted from the purview of the Kerala **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 10 Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Respondents 1 and 2 had tendered evidence through PW1 and they had issued Ext.A2 lawyer notice dated 17.2.2014 to the revision petitioners intimating the termination of the lease. As per the same, termination of the tenancy was with effect from 1.4.2014. Therefore, the question is what exactly is the status of the revision petitioners in respect of the plaint schedule property after 1.4.2014. The said question has to be considered in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in **Raphimon v. Kerala State Wakf Board (2016 (4) KLT 509)** in which one among us (Anil K.Narendran (J)) was a member. This Court held therein that in terms of section 3(ee) of the Wakf Act and in terms of Rule 18 of the Wakf Properties Lease Rules, 2014, a person who is in occupation of a wakf property, after the expiry of the lease is an encroacher and prosecution could be initiated under the Wakf Act on such a person. The oral testimony of PW1 along with documentary evidence in Ext.A2 would reveal that the tenancy was terminated. That apart, the fact that lease period had actually expired much earlier is not at all in dispute. In this context, it is to be noted **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 11 that despite the evidence tendered by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein in that regard, the revision petitioners had not tendered any evidence to rebut such contentions. In the light of the indisputable position obtained in this case that Ext.A2 lawyer notice dated 17.2.2014 was served on the revision petitioners and going by the same, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 1.4.2014 and in the absence of any contra evidence on the part of the revision petitioners, the irresistible conclusion is that after 1.4.2014, the revision petitioners are continuing in the plaint schedule property only as encroachers or their continuance is unauthorised. Shortly stated, in terms of the provisions under section 3(ee) of the Wakf Act and the decision in **Raphimon** 's case, after the aforesaid date, they can be treated only as encroachers. When that be so, certainly, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for eviction of the revision petitioners. The Tribunal only granted such a relief by directing the revision petitioners to vacate the plaint schedule property and hand over the plaint schedule property within the period stipulated thereunder. 9. Despite taking up a contention that they had paid rent upto **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 12 June, 2013, refuting the specific case of the plaintiffs that the revision petitioners had paid rent only up to March 2013, the revision petitioners had not tendered any evidence to show that they had not committed default in payment of rent. In such circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal to pay an amount of Rs.39,000/- as arrears of rent from March 2013 to 31.3.2014 also cannot be said to be illegal. 10. The evidence tendered by PW1 is to the effect that similar buildings in the locality would fetch at least Rs.15,000/-. Still, they claimed only Rs.10,000/- per month towards illegal use of plaint schedule property after termination of tenancy from 1.4.2014. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioners had been paying rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month from 2002 onwards and considering the inflation, the Tribunal fixed the damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property after 1.4.2014 @ Rs.7,500/- per month. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act as also the decision in **Raphimon** 's case (supra), the direction of the Tribunal to revision petitioners and defendant No.3 to vacate the plaint schedule property to hand over the **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 13 possession and in case of their failure to surrender possession granting liberty to the plaintiffs to get it vacated in accordance with law cannot be said to be perverse. In short, on a careful consideration of the contentions and going through the impugned judgment, we do not find any reason to hold that the judgment under challenge is infected with any illegality or impropriety warranting an interference in exercise of the revisional power. The upshot of the discussions is that the revision petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** # **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 14 # **CRP (Wakf).325/2017** 15