Waqf Allal Aulad and Another vs Ist A.D.J. and Another

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Through this review petition review of my judgment dated 21.08.2008 has been sought through which I allowed the writ petition which had been filed by the landlord. The trial court had decreed the suit for eviction, however Revisional Court had set aside the said judgment and decree. Through my judgment dated 21.08.2008, I set aside the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court and restored the decree of eviction passed by the trial court.

The first point argued by learned Counsel for tenant-applicant in this review petition is that certified copy of Waqf deed was not filed before the trial court. The records of the trial court have been summoned and certified copy of waqf deed is available in the said records.

The second point argued is that Clause (bbb) inserted in Section 2(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 {U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 providing for exemption from operation of the Act on any building belonging to or vested in a Waqf including a Waqf-alal-aulad is prospective and not retrospective (Paras 17, 19 & 21 of Review Application). The said clause was inserted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.09.1994. The said question is not involved as the suit was filed in the year 1995 (SCC Suit No32 of 1995) and the clause was inserted with effect from 26.09.1994. Accordingly, even if amendment is held to be prospective it will apply to the suit in question.

One more ground has been taken in Para-18 of this Review Application to the effect that the mother of the applicants (i.e. wife of original tenant Respondent Desh Raj) was not represented. In the substitution application she was also sought to be impleaded. The substitution application was allowed on 11.08.2008. Even if it is assumed that she was not represented still it will not make any difference as after the death of tenant all the heirs inherit the tenancy jointly and in case of joint tenancy, even one tenant can represent all other joint tenants vide Harish Tandon Vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others, and Ashok Chintaman Juker and Others Vs. Kishore Pandurang Mantri and Another, Sons of original tenants were represented.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the review petition, hence it is dismissed.

Tenants, legal representatives of Respondent No. 2 are granted three months further time to vacate on the same terms and conditions which were imposed through the judgment and order dated 21.08.2008, i.e. deposit of Rs. 3000/-@ Rs. 1000/-per month and filing of undertaking.

Lower court records which had been summoned for the purpose of hearing of this review petition shall immediately be sent back by the office.