PUNJAB WAKF BOARD Vs. TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.7360, 7361, 7365, 7366, 7377 & 7521 of 2012 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions. However, for dictating this judgment, the facts have been taken from Civil Revision No.7360 of 2012.

(2.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 12.9.2012 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar whereby the Execution Petition filed by the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") has been held to be not maintainable on the ground that the award dated 22.4.2008 passed by the Wakf Tribunal was without jurisdiction. The Executing Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf,2010 3 SCC(Civ) 553 and Sarup Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another, 2011 AIR(SC) 514.

(3.) The petitioner Board had filed a suit for possession on 20.1.2003 for recovery of possession against the present respondents regarding shop bearing No.2176/V-13 situated in the Chowk Manna Singh, Amritsar and for recovery of Rs. 7650/- as rent upto 31.12.2002 before the Wakf Tribunal. The case of the Board was that the shop in dispute was the wakf property and the rent was Rs. 50/- per month with effect from 1.4.1987 as per allotment letter dated 6.1.1988 and the rent had been paid upto 31.3.1990 by the respondents and there was default thereafter which had not been made good inspite of demands. The respondents had made certain additions and alterations without written consent and respondent no.1 had sublet the the premises to respondent no.2 without permission. The property was exempted from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and notice dated 18.11.2002 had also been served upon the respondents to avoid any technical objection. Respondent no.1 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service and respondent no.2 challenged the maintainability of the suit taking the plea that he was inducted in March, 1991 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and since then he was in possession and regularly paying the rent. He was ready to tender the rent but the Board was not ready to accept the same and demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made illegally on account of donation. No receipt for payment of rent had been issued and he was paying the rent from March, 1991 till the filing of the suit. The factum of alteration and addition had been denied. Respondent no.1 had no concern with the disputed shop and neither the Board had approached him for delivery of vacant possession.