C.A.ALI KUNJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners. Also heard Sri.K.A.Balan, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. For the 2nd and 3rd respondents, Sri.T.P.Sajid, the learned Standing Counsel Wakf Board is appearing. The 4th respondent is also represented by the learned counsel.

(2.) The appellants were the tenants of shop rooms in a building belonging to the Wakf Board. The building itself was constructed on the basis of interest free security deposits provided by the prospective tenants. After some years of occupation, the Wakf Board issued order(s) on 25.5.2017 (Exts.P1 to P17) which stated that since the lease was not extended, the tenants are declared to be encroachers under Section 3(ee) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and on that basis, the termination of lease for the occupants was ordered. A decision was also taken to invite offers from the public for lease of the Wakf building, under Rule 4 of the Wakf Properties Lease Rules, 2014.

(3.) Aggrieved by the above steps for eviction taken by the Wakf Board, the tenants filed the W.P.(C)No.21731 of 2017 raising the contention that Section 3(ee) is unconstitutional since the Muthawally is given unbridled power to declare the tenants to be encroachers. Challenge was also made to the decision to evict the tenants and to invite offers for induction of fresh tenants in the building.