Surinder Kumar vs Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, exercising the powers of Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995. In brief, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment from a building measuring 300 Sq. Yds. which is a part of a Mosque building bearing M.C. No. B-II/679, situated on Railway Road, Muktsar, Tehsil and District Muktsar, and also for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation for unauthorized use and occupation thereof.

The case of the respondent in the suit was that the property in dispute was given on license to the petitioner @ Rs. 250/- per year with a condition that it can be revoked at any time and he had to deliver vacant possession on the expiry of the notice period. The petitioner had taken the property for residential purpose but had constructed a godown over it, A notice dated 29.08.2006 revoking his license was served upon him directing him to deliver vacant possession of the disputed property within 7 days of the service of the notice, but since he did not deliver the vacant possession on the expiry of the notice period, the suit was filed for his eviction and also for compensation.

The stand taken by the petitioner in his written statement was that he had become the owner of the suit property as he is in peaceful, continuous and hostile possession of the property in dispute. He denied that the property in dispute was given to him on license and has alleged that he used to pay Rs. 250/- per year to the employees of the respondent who did not issue receipts.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after both the parties led their evidence, the Tribunal decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 10.03.2008.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction as the remedy lies before the Civil Court. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf,

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the respondent, the petitioner was only a licensee, whereas the stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement and also in the present writ petition is that he was in hostile possession and has become the owner by way of adverse possession. She has referred to the pleadings in the written statement which has been noticed by the Tribunal in para No. 3 of its judgment wherein it has been observed that "defendant has become the owner of the suit property as he is in peaceful, continuous hostile possession of the same" and also the question of law which has been framed by the petitioner in the present writ petition in para No. 11 which reads "whether the Wakf Board can claim possession when the petitioner become owner of the property by way of adverse possession". She has further submitted that if the petitioner was inducted as a tenant, he cannot claim ownership over the property in dispute by virtue of adverse possession. Once the plea of adverse possession is taken, it means that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

I have heard both counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no quarrel with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram''s case (supra) that wherever the Wakf Board is seeking eviction of a tenant sitting over its property, the jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition or suit is only of the Civil Court and not the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995. However, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case because the petitioner has miserably failed to prove by leading any evidence that he has ever been inducted as a tenant in the property of the Wakf Board, rather his consistent stand before the Tribunal as well as in the present writ petition is of an unauthorized occupant because he has been claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession. It is well settled law that a tenant is always a tenant until and unless evicted in accordance with law and also a tenant cannot claim ownership rights by way of adverse possession because the plea of adverse possession can be taken by a person who is in unauthorized possession and not in permissive possession. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.