BAL KISHAN Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Sec. 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Jalandhar, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the case of respondent No.1-Punjab Wakf Board, the petitioner is in possession vide lease deed dtd. 15/9/2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.400.00 per month w.e.f. 1/5/2006 with enhancement clause of 10% after every three years. It is argued that in fact, the petitioner is in possession of the property prior to the said lease deed dtd. 15/9/2006 and in order to prima facie show his possession prior to the date of lease deed dtd. 15/9/2006, the petitioner has referred to the driving licence of his son issued on 3/3/2000 Ex.D5 as well as Ex.D6 which is ration card dated 20.0E2001, showing that the petitioner along with his family members were residing in Ward No.B-II, 790/5, Satnam Nagar since the year 200E It is submitted that from the above said documents, it is apparent that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question prior to the lease deed dtd. 15/9/2006 and thus, the case set up by respondent No.l-Punjab Wakf Board was incorrect. It is submitted that the eviction order passed on the basis of the false plea deserves to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is argued that the reliance placed upon Ex.P7 by the Wakf Tribunal to observe that the petitioner was paying rent from time to time is also misconceived, inasmuch as, document Ex.P7 is a register of the Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh and is a self-serving document and the same does not carry any endorsement/signature of the present petitioner. It is thus, argued that the said document cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of holding that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises.

(3.) This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.