MOHAMMAD AZIM Vs. DAUDI BOHRA JAMAT SOLE TRUSTY HIS HOLINESS SAIYADANA DR MOHAMMAD BURHANUDDIN MANAGING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant are as under:

(2.) The suit shop admeasuring 57.6x35 ft. situated at Rikhipara Ward, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur is Wakf property said to be leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent of . 75/ and the plaintifftrust is exempted by virtue of the notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1961"). The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant stating interalia that the defendant has not paid rent from 1.1.1990 up to 2001 and for which, notice was served to him and ultimately he deposited the entire rent on 10.7.2001 up to 31.12.2001 with the plaintiff, but the defendant has not handed over the vacant possession of the suit shop after 31.12.2001 and accordingly, tenancy was terminated by legal notice dated 26.2.2002 and thereafter the present suit was filed for eviction.

(3.) The defendant has filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating interalia that the defendant is a permanent tenant of AnjumanEiSaifi Bohra Jamat and is running his business there in the name of Mamta Soap Works. The suit shop was obtained on lease by his father Mohd. Gulam Nabi in the year 194546 from the then Secretary of AnjumanEiSaifi Wakf and initially the rent of the suit shop was of 180/ per year, which was increased from time to time. On 09.12.1989, civil suit No.6A/1988 filed by the plaintiff was compromised with the terms that the defendant will pay the annual rent of 900/ per year and he is at liberty to alter/renovate his construction as per his convenience and need. Since the defendant has raised permanent construction over the suit land, there is no question of vacation of the suit shop and the tenancy has become permanent in nature and become irreversible. The plaintiff has other alternative sufficient adjoining space and land to enhance its religious and charitable work and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.