KAR STATE BD OF WAKFS Vs. MOHD AZEEMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1976 passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur, in RA No. 120 of 1975, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1975 passed by the Munsiff, Raichur, in OS No. 519 of 1972 on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession.

(2.) Plaintiff insti tuted the suit for possession of the suit shop. The suit shop is a Wakf property created by the Muslims for the benefit of Masjid Kotatlar, Raichur. Plaintiff Shaik AH is the Chairmaa of the Managing Committee of the said Mosque. The said shop is a part of the Mosque. Defendant 1 took the said shop on rental from plaintiff Shaik AH by a lease deed dated 10 10 1969 for eleven months at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. Even on the expiry of the said lease period, he is continuing in possession, by holding over on the basis of the oral lease, the tenancy being from month to month. Defendant 2 is the brother of defendant 1 and he has a pawn shop on the 'Katta' of the said shop. He is a sub tenant under defendant 1 without the consent of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that a new Mosque is being constructed in the place of the old Mosque and the Managing Committee wants to convert the existing shop into a house. Hence the plaintiff demanded of the defendants to vacate the suit shop ; but, they avoided. On obtaining the consent of the Wakf Board, the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants. The Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, do not apply to the Wakf property under the management of the plaintiff/Board. The tenancy of the defendants was terminated in accordance with law. Since the defendants refused to vacate, the suit for eviction was filed.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement. According to them, the suit was not maintainable as it was not under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Besides, the Karnataka State Boerd of Wakfs had directed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The suit shop was not under the management of the Wakf Board. They denied that there was any sub letting to defendant 2. The notices to them, according to them, were not valid.