M.Premchander vs Telngana State Wakf Board

This revision is directed against the order dated 07.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.106 of 2020 in O.A.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabad.

O.A.No.6 of 2020 is filed by M.Premchander-petitioner-applicant against Telangana State Waqf Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, praying the Tribunal to set aside the order in F.No.R2/113/RENT/HYD/2011 dated 08.12.2020 and to declare that it as null and void. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein also filed an application seeking to grant ad interim temporary injunction in his favour by suspending the order dated 08.12.2020. Counter is filed by the respondent-Wakf Board. After considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order this revision is preferred by the petitioner herein.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Wakf Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially Mohd. Wasim Khan was in possession of the mulgi bearing municipal bearing No.15-4-55 admeasuring 237 square feet i.e. the suit schedule property and later it was allotted to K.Narsing Rao on rental basis and he was running printing press in it and that the petitioner herein assisted K.Narsing Rao in his day to day business activities. The said K.Narsing Rao died on 16.03.2004. During his life time on 25.05.1996 he addressed a letter to the respondent and sought for transfer of tenancy from him to the petitioner herein by enclosing a declaration on a non-judicial stamp paper. Subsequently the possession of the subject property was handed over to the petitioner and he was paying rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent. The said K.Narsing Rao also addressed an application to the respondent seeking change of his name as tenant and also requested the respondent to permit him to repair and renovate the subject property as it was old and in a dilapidated condition. Learned counsel would also submit that the respondent issued a Memo dated 19.09.2016 directing the petitioner to appear before the Rent Review Committee (R.R.C) of respondent Board and accordingly the petitioner appeared before the R.R.C. and that the rent was enhanced. The petitioner herein gave representations dated 09.06.2020 and 10.06.2020 to the respondent stating that the tin roof of the mulgi was collapsed on 12.03.2020 and sought permission to carry out repairs. During the lock down the mulgi was remained closed but without any intimation and any notice, the respondent officials came to the subject property on 08.12.2020 and sealed the mulgi in a high handed manner and as such requested the Court to set aside the order under challenge. Learned counsel would also state that the Tribunal held that the petitioner herein is an encroacher but the respondent has to issue notice under Section 54 of Wakf Act, 1955 to take possession of the disputed property and it was not considered by the Tribunal. He would argue that the Tribunal erred in applying Wakf Property Lease Rules, 2014 to the facts of the case and the said Rules are inapplicable to the petitioner herein as he is a tenant for more than thirty five years.

In a counter filed by the respondent the Board contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the subject application. As the subject property is attached to the Mosque and the roof of the mulgi is collapsed and it is in a dilapidated condition and the door is intact, the question of petitioner carrying on business does not arise. The petitioner has no relationship with K.Narsing Rao as the tenancy of the mulgi was not transferred or mutated in his name. Therefore the respondent took steps to protect the mulgi from further deterioration. The petitioner is neither Muthawali nor a person interested in Waqf nor any other person aggrieved by the orders of the Board.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that K.Narsing Rao was tenant of the suit schedule mulgi and during his life time he executed a declaration requesting for transfer of tenancy in the name of the petitioner on 25.05.1996. Mere declaration by K.Narsing Rao during his life time will not entitle the petitioner herein to continue the tenancy either during his life time or after his death without the authorisation by the Wakf Board. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the mulgi in question is a Wakf property. The Wakf Board directed the petitioner to attend before the C.E.O., A.P.S.W.B. in his chambers in a Memo dated 04.10.2013. Another letter was also issued by the Project Officer, Wakf Board, on 19.09.2016 in which the petitioner was called for fixation of rent along with market value certificate of the Sub-Registrar as per lease Rules, 2014. The petitioner in a letter dated 26.09.2016 stated that he attended the meeting and the rent was increased from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.5,000/- in the year 2015 and as per his admission the memo copy was received on 19.09.2016 but it seems that the petitioner requested the authorities to cancel the memo and thus in an order dated 20.10.2016 the Project Officer clearly held that the order of fixation of rent holds good and directed the petitioner to comply with the order. Though the petitioner herein stated that he complied with the order and paying rents as per the directions of the Wakf Board, he has not filed any rental receipts in support of his contention. The receipts filed by him are pertaining to K.Narsing Rao during his tenure. The petitioner addressed several letters to the Wakf Board to permit him to repair the mulgi, but it never accorded. The Wakf Board allotted the property to one Imtiyaz Ahmed in an order dated 09.11.2020 and accordingly he paid Rs.8,000/- per month as rent and non-refundable deposit of Rs.50,000/- and the mulgi was allotted to him for period of eleven months from the date of issuance of proceedings dated 08.01.2020. The Wakf Board also filed an application against the petitioner on 09.06.2020 with acknowledgement dated 03.06.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that acknowledgement is prior to the date of complaint and it was fabricated for the purpose of the case. The Chief Executive Officer also gave complaint to the Commissioner, GHMC against the petitioner.

No doubt, the petitioner herein is continued in the premises ever after the death of K.Narsing Rao. The Wakf Board contended that in spite of several instructions the petitioner has not enhanced the rent as stated by it and thus the Board allotted the mugi to the other person and he deposited the amount immediately. The petitioner in the said correspondence mentioned that he is a tenant and taking advantage of the same he filed this revision by contending that the Wakf Board did not follow the due procedure to evict him as per Section 54 of Wakf Act and the petitioner was not evicted by due process of law and as such the order of the Wakf Board is liable to be set aside.

The petitioner herein has not filed any letter of allotment of the mulgi in his name by the Wakf Board and therefore he failed to establish that he is tenant in the premises. The Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is an encroacher as he failed to comply with required conditions of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss caused to him and accordingly the application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner herein contended that lease was granted to K.Narsing Rao for period of thirty five years and as such the Rules of 2014 are not applicable to him. Admittedly, lease was granted to K.Narsing Rao for a period of thirty five years but not to the petitioner herein and the declaration of K.Narsing Rao to transfer the tenancy in the name of the petitioner is not sufficient. Allotment of mulgi is to be made by the Wakf Board in favour of the petitioner but it was never done by the Wakf Board. Moreover, the Wakf Board also shown a video and filed the photographs regarding break open of the lock and tearing of the notice affixed to the shop in pursuance of the order dated 08.12.02020. The petitioner herein has also filed another O.A. challenging the allotment made in favour of the Imtiyaz Ahmed.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the order under challenge and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order under challenge.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.