Suit For Eviction Maintainable Before Wakf Tribunal If Tenant Disputes That Property Is Not A Wakf: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a suit for eviction is maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal if the tenant disputed that the property is not a wakf.

This is because the question whether a property belongs to wakf is exclusively triable by the Wakf Tribunal.

In this case, the Telangana State Wakf Board filed a suit before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the defendant from the property belonging to the Wakf institution. The defendant filed his written statement wherein inter alia he had contended that the suit property is not a Wakf property. The Wakf tribunal decreed the suit holding the suit schedule properties to be the property belongs to the Wakf institution and directed the defendant to vacate the suit schedule properties. In revision petition filed by the defendant, the High Court, referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726; held that the suit was not maintainable before the Wakf tribunal and has allowed the parties to avail their remedy as per law.

In appeal, the Wakf Board contended that in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Another vs Anis Fatma Begum and Another (2010) 14 SCC 588 and in the case of Haryana Wakf Board versus Mahesh Kumar (2014) 16 SCC 45, it was held that the question as to whether a property is Wakf property or otherwise is exclusively determinable by the Wakf tribunal after enactment of the Wakf Act. Relying on Punjab Wakf Board vs Sham Singh Harike (2019) 4 SCC 698, it was contended that in order to determine as to whether there is a bar on the jurisdiction to the civil court in relation to the provision contained in Wakf Act, one is to ask the question as to whether the issue raised in the suit or proceeding concerned is required to be decided under the Wakf Act, 1995 by the tribunal under any provision or not and if the answer to that question is in the affirmative the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court would operate. 

On the other hand, the defendant relied on Faseela M. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee (2014)16 SCC 38 to argue that even in a case where it is disputed by the defendant that the property is not a Wakf property and if it is a case seeking eviction of the tenant, the suit is required to be filed before the civil court and jurisdiction of the Wakf tribunal cannot be invoked.

To address these rival contentions, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna noticed a judgment of three judge bench in Kiran Devi versus Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board.

"In the said case, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff before the competent civil court but the defendants, namely the Wakf Board had contended that the issue is to be decided by Wakf tribunal. They filed application and sought transfer of the suit to the Wakf tribunal which was accordingly ordered by the civil court and was also upheld by the High Court in Revision. Subsequently, having succeed on merits before the Wakf tribunal, had failed in the writ petition wherein the claim of plaintiff was upheld. The Wakf Board at that point raised the contention that the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction in the appeal filed before this Court by placing reliance on Ramesh Gobindram (supra). This Court in the facts arising therein had held that the judgment passed by the Wakf tribunal in the circumstance cannot be held as without jurisdiction.", the court noted.

The court then observed that the facts and circumstance in each case will have to be ken note in the background of the legal frame work contained in the Wakf Act to determine jurisdiction. In this case, the Wakf Board had got issued a notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy relating to the schedule property. But in his reply notice, the defendant had denied that the property in question was a Wakf property. 

"In the said circumstance, the instant case cannot be deemed as an admitted case of the property being Wakf property as in the reply notice itself the respondent had disputed the same. It is in that circumstance the appellants being of the impression that the first issue to be established is that the property in question is the Wakf property, which could be considered by the tribunal, had filed the suit before the Wakf tribunal.", the bench observed.

The court, noticed that similar defence was taken in the written statement as well. Thus the issue had fallen for consideration before the Wakf tribunal in view of the defence put forth by the respondent and the Wakf tribunal had rendered its finding on that aspect based on the evidence placed before it, it said. 

"In such circumstance, the Wakf tribunal had the jurisdiction to determine that question which had been framed as an issue in this suit. Further as already noted, on the facts evolving in the instant case, the tribunal had relied upon the evidence available and had arrived at the conclusion that the property in question is Wakf property and had accordingly decreed the suit.", the bench said while restoring the judgment of the Tribunal.

Case: Telangana State Wakf Board vs. Mohamed Muzafar ; CA 4522 OF 2021

Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna

Counsel: Adv  Akriti Chaubey, for the appellants and Adv Raavi Venkata Yogesh for respondent

Citation: LL 2021 SC 348

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/31367/31367_2015_43_1503_28987_Judgement_03-Aug-2021.pdf