SOHAN LAL PAHWA Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision -petition is directed against the Judgment/order dated 06.10.2006, rendered by the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, Ludhiana, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff (now respondent) for possession of the property, in dispute, as also for recovery of rent from 01.07.1999 @ Rs. 2700/ - per month till the filing of the suit, with interest.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the wakf property measuring 17695 square yards comprising khasra Nos. 160 and 161 min, in the shape of a plot out of total land measuring 80 kanals 19 marlas, situated at village Hambran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as fully detailed, in the plaint, was leased out to defendant/revision -petitioner, vide allotment order No. 24/Lease -U/F. No. 1486/95/3198 dated 26.7.1995 w.e.f. 1.7.1995 @ Rs. 2700/ - per month. One of the terms of the lease agreement, was that the defendant/revision -petitioner, shall obtain 'No Objection Certificate' for construction. It was stated that the purpose of lease was for planting the fruit trees only. A separate rent deed dated 7th August, 1995 was executed by the defendant/revision -petitioner, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/revision -petitioner did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment order, and the rent note, executed by him. He became defaulter in making payment of the arrears of rent from 1.7.1999. It was further stated that the defendant/revision -petitioner failed to settle the terms of rent afresh, as he had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' for the construction of the boundary wall and had constructed the same around the plot, in dispute. It was further stated that since the defendant/revision -petitioner, violated the terms and conditions of the allotment order, and also of the rent note, and, as such, a legal notice dated 26.6.2001 was served upon him, against which, he sent a frivolous reply. It was further stated that the defendant/revision -petitioner was asked many a time, to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment order, and the rent note, referred to above, and make payment of the outstanding amount, but to no avail. It was further started that after the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy of the defendant/revision -petitioner, stood terminated, and his possession over the property, in dispute, became illegal and un -authorized. On the final refusal of the defendant, to hand over the vacant possession of the property, in dispute, as also pay the arrears of rent, left with no alternative, a suit for possession as also for mandatory injunction for payment of the outstanding amount, was filed.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed, by the Tribunal: