SOM NATH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Som Nath had filed a suit before Tribunal Wakf Act, Ludhiana against the defendants Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt etc., seeking grant of permanent injunction on the averments that he is in possession of the suit property as lessee and licensee at monthly rent of Rs. 5.00, vide allotment letter dtd. 26/3/1969/10/4/1969. As a matter of fact, plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass had taken the suit property on lease from defendant Nos. 1 & 2 but later on with malafide intention the latter did not accept the rent w.e.f. 1/4/1984 onwards and rather, tried to interfere in possession of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought the suit in question. It may be mentioned here that the suit was earlier pendingbefore Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) but on a reference having been may by him, it was transferred to the Tribunal under Wakf Act at Ludhiana as per orders of learned District Judge, Ludhiana.

(2.) On notice, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 put in appearance and filed joint written statement, contesting the suit. Inter alia, it is contended that the suit was not maintainable, in view of non service of notice under Sec. 56 of the Wakf Act by the plaintiff upon the answering respondents before filing of the suit; the plaintiff did not have any cause of action to bring the suit, the plaintiff lacked locus standi to institute the suit and the suit property is presently in possession of defendant No.3 as a tenant under defendant Nos.1 and 2 at monthly rent of Rs. 720.00 w.e.f. 1/4/1991, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The answering defendants denied that plaintiff and Sh. Ramji Dass had been paying rent and licence fee to them regularly or that such answering defendants with malafide intention had not accepted the rent w.e.f. 1/4/1984, which as alleged was tendered and offered by the plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass.

(3.) By moving an application, defendant No.3 Madhu Kamal Sehgal got himself impleaded as a party. He also filed written statement, taking various legal pleas, rather contending that he is in possession of the suit property as it was allotted to him by Punjab Wakf Board; his tenancy came into being w.e.f. 1/1/1992 onwards for commercial shed, vide allotment order dtd. 7/3/1992 and 'No Objection Certificate1 was issued in his favour by defendant Nos.l and 2, allowing him to raiseconstruction on the ground floor of the suit property and for constructing commercial shed thereon; when the present plaintiff and his associates, namely, Smt. Shashi Bala and Om Parkash etc., made an abortive attempt to usurp the suit property, defendant No.3 had filed a civil suit and along with that had moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction; the said application for grant of ad-interim injunction was accepted by the trial Court on 3/8/1998. Resultantly, the present plaintiff and his associates were restrained from interfering into the suit property. Such defendant denied that the plaintiff and late Sh. Ramji Dass had taken the suit property on lease in the year 1989, vide allotment order dtd. 10/4/1969 or that any mosque was allotted to them on payment of license fee @ Rs. l/- per month. According to such defendant, the plaintiff does not have any right or concern with the suit property. Such defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.