MOHD. ASIF Vs. DELHI WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 18th September 2013 passed by the learned ADJ -02/Wakf Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi, in a suit bearing No. ML 6/10, whereby the application of the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking relief to grant interim protection by way of staying the operation of the eviction order dated 31st December 2009 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent -Board was dismissed by the Tribunal. The suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff with a prayer for passing a decree, declaring relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties; declaring the proceedings under Section 54 of Wakf Act as null and void; declaring that the Wakf is a Shia Wakf, and also a decree for permanent injunction against the respondent and its agents, employees and representatives preventing them from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit premises.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner before the learned trial Court was that he is in possession and occupation of one Hamam (Gusal Khana) and one room situated on the roof of the said Hamam in property bearing Municipal No. 5216, Masjid Chooney Wali, Basant Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi -110055 in the capacity of a tenant. The plaintiff claimed that the Masjid is a Masjid Ali and the said property is a Wakf property which includes the tenanted premises, the Masjid and Imambara.

(3.) THE petitioner claims that his father, who was a tenant of the Delhi Wakf Board in respect of the suit premises was managing the Masjid and he took over the management after the death of his father, as no managing committee was appointed by the respondent for the purpose. The petitioner claims to be regularly holding religious functions in the Imambara and managing the Masjid and further claims to have inherited the muttawaliship as well as the tenancy from his father. He adds that the said Masjid is a Shia Masjid and due to prejudice among the staff of the respondent, the proceedings against him were wrongly initiated by the respondent -Board.