AKASH JAIN Vs. JAMA MASJID COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/defendant has directed this revision under section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 being aggrieved by the order dated 26-6- 2010 passed by the M. P. State Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. Nil/2010 directing the applicant to deposit the entire arrears of the rent of the disputed premises within one month in the suit for eviction filed by the respondent.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent herein filed the suit against the applicant for eviction with respect of the premises situated at Sagar. Undisputedly, the respondent being constituted under the provision of Wakf Act, its property is governed with such enactment. By virtue of the Notification No.F-24-(4)-83-XXXII-l dated 7-9-1989 the provision of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is not applicable to any property of the respondent.

(3.) SHRI M. L. Choubey, learned counsel after taking me through the averments of the revision memo as well as the pleadings and the papers placed on the record argued that undisputedly the present case is not governed by the provision of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 so the application filed on behalf of the respondent under section 13(6) of such Act for closing the right of the applicant to defend the case was not entertainable and on that basis the applicant could not be directed to deposit the outstanding sum of the rent. He also argued that under the provision of Rent Control Act there is certain provision empowering the Court to struck out the defence on account of non-payment of the outstanding rent or regular rent of the premises but there is no such provision under the Transfer of Property Act and, in such premises, the impugned order being passed in the lack of any statutory provision, is not sustainable under the law. In continuation he also argued that Courts should not pass such an order for which the procedure for it's compliance or execution is not provided under the law. In this respect he said that if in compliance of such order the step is not taken by the applicant then there is no provision under the law to take any recourse or action against the applicant regarding violation of such order. He also argued that the High Court, being superior Court and the Court of record, is duty bound to keep all record in accordance with the law and if any apparent error is noticed then this Court has to determine the scope of the jurisdiction. In such premises, this Court is having the jurisdiction to rectify such order which has been passed by the inferior Court or the subordinate Court without having such vested jurisdiction in that regard. By placing his reliance on a case law in the matter of M. M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2000 SC 540, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this revision.