High Court of Delhi was dealing with the revision petitions arise out of orders dated 4th October, 2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal. The said order dismissed the applications of Petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC. Effectively, the prayer seeking injunction against the Waqf Board from dispossessing the Petitioners, from suit property, was rejected.
Brief Facts:
A notice was issued against the Petitioners under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, stating that the Petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of Waqf property. Therefore, they were directed to vacate the suit property, within 15 days of service of the order. Since the said notice was not complied with by the Petitioners, procedure for enforcement of the eviction orders was triggered under Section 55 of the Waqf Act. During the pendency of the enforcement of the said order, the Petitioners entered into rent agreements with the Waqf Board. Their tenancy itself came to an end. The Petitioners, however, continued to remain in occupation of the suit property. The Waqf Board filed proceedings before the High Court of Delhi, against the SDM in seeking execution under Section 55 of the Waqf Act, of various eviction orders and encroachment proceedings pending over Waqf properties. HC directed the SDM to execute pending eviction orders over Waqf properties. On eliciting no response from the SDM, the Petitioners, filed three suits for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the Waqf Board. The Waqf Board pleaded therein that there was never any sale of the suit property to the Petitioners. The SDM then issued a second eviction notice under Section 55 of the Waqf Act, on 28th September, 2019. At this stage, feeling threatened by the impending eviction, the Petitioners filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction against the Waqf Board, from dispossessing the Petitioners from the suit property, during the pendency of the suits.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Waqf Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain landlord-tenant disputes in cases of eviction. He contended that in the present suits, a question has also been raised under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, as to whether the suit property is itself a Waqf property and thus, this issue deserves to be adjudicated upon by the Waqf Tribunal in final proceedings. He submitted that the original eviction order was no longer valid and has been overridden by the subsequent rent deed.
It was submitted that before any tenant can be evicted, ‘due process’ has to be followed and the said ‘due process’ would mean that the Waqf Board ought to take action for eviction under Sections 54 and 55 of the Waqf Act. It was submitted that the eviction herein could only have taken place as per the ‘due process’ prescribed under Sections 54 and 55 of the Waqf Act. Since the earlier notices and orders under Section 54 and 55 of the Waqf Act, were not valid as per his earlier submissions, the same cannot be used to establish compliance with ‘due process’ of eviction under the Waqf Act. Since ‘due process’ has not been followed, the logical conclusion would be to grant injunction in favour of the Petitioners.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Petitioner’s plea for status quo was refused and the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC were rejected by the Waqf Tribunal. The Waqf Tribunal has considered all the contentions of the parties on merits and this is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of ‘due process’ for dispossession of the Petitioners.
He submitted that the Petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts, since they failed to bring eviction orders and rent agreements to the notice of the Waqf Tribunal.
He submitted that the original eviction notice had not lapsed as it had already been sent by the Waqf Board to the concerned SDM to execute it. It was during the pendency of the said execution proceedings in the eviction notice of 2007, that the rent deed was executed. However, the Waqf Board cannot be blamed for delay in execution of that order by the SDM.
HC’s Observations:
HC after hearing both the sides stated that on the applicability Section 83 of the Waqf Act, in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari & Ors the Supreme Court held as under: Thus, Act 27 of 2013 did 2 things. First it expanded the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal even to cover landlord-tenant disputes and the rights and obligations of lessor and lessee. HC relied upon the case of Ramesh Govindram (Dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf where SC stated that “under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the eviction of tenants from Waqf property would not be within the domain of the Waqf Tribunal.”
HC stated that the decision in Ramesh Gobindram was prior to the amendment of the Waqf Act. Post the amendment, it is clear that the Waqf Tribunal’s jurisdiction is exercisable even in the case of landlord-tenant disputes, lessor-lessee disputes etc., as in the present case.
HC observed that in view of Section 107 of the Waqf Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to the eviction proceedings in question, including the eviction notice. In the present case, the occupants would be removed from the suit property by rejection of an application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC, filed by the Petitioners themselves against the Waqf Board.
In the suit, the Waqf Board, apart from filing the written statement in response to the Petitioners’ suits, has also filed its counter claim before the Waqf Tribunal and along with the said two pleadings, the rent agreements were attached. The first rent agreement is dated 16th October, 2008 and is between the Delhi Waqf Board and Mohd. Adil and one Mohd. Sufyan, stated to be another son of Mohd. Razi. On similar terms, the second rent agreement dated 5th November, 2008 was executed between the Waqf Board and Smt. Afroznissa. The said rent deeds related to the suit property in question.
HC relied upon the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs, where Court stated that “‘due process’ need not always mean a process initiated by the owner it can be any judicial proceedings where the respective contentions of the parties are adjudicated in a free and fair manner and with proper opportunity being afforded to the parties.” Court stated that it is the settled legal position that ‘due process’ need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property. It can even mean rejection of relief in a proceeding initiated by the occupants/encroachers or persons in possession.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “These rent deeds and material facts have been deliberately and intentionally concealed from the Waqf Tribunal when the plaints were filed. The rent deeds are very clear that the tenancy was only for a period of 11 months. The Petitioners are encroachers/trespassers and in any case, unauthorized occupants of public land belonging to the Waqf and the said issue has been considered in detail by the Waqf Tribunal. The submission made on behalf of the Petitioners to the effect that ‘due process’ has not been followed is thus, liable to be rejected. In any event, the Petitioners having entered into rent agreements are estopped from challenging the title of the Waqf Board as stipulated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.”
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Mehvish Adil v. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors
Case Details: C.R.P. 223/2019 & CM APPLs. 44663/2019 & 44665/2019
Picture Source :
