HAJI ALI AKBAR Vs. WAKF ALAL ALLAH/ ALAL KHAIR WAKF MASJID ILALHI, KANPUR NAGAR
LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-94
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 24,2019

HAJI ALI AKBAR Appellant
VERSUS
WAKF ALAL ALLAH/ ALAL KHAIR WAKF MASJID ILALHI, KANPUR NAGAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Court of Small Causes in SCC Suit No.43 of 2005 and judgement and decree dated 18.9.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge SC/ST Act in SSC Revision No.13 of 2014.
(2.) The facts in brief relevant for deciding the instant petition are as follows:- SCC Suit No.43 of 2005 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, which is a registered Waqf through its Mutwalli Hazi Abdul Gaffur. During pendency of the suit, he died. After his death, Mahmood Alam Qureshi was substituted in his place and he prosecuted the suit thereafter. The relief claimed in the suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') from a shop bearing No.3 in Building No.77/93 Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar. According to the plaint assertions, the property belonged to registered Waqf No.455 and the rent of the shop was Rs.300/- per month, apart from water tax and house tax payable at the rate of 18%. The defendant was alleged to be in default in payment of rent since 10.5.1998, consequently, his tenancy was terminated by a registered notice dated 7/8.10.2004 served upon him by refusal on 11.10.2004. It was further asserted that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement claiming that rent of the premises was Rs.300/- per month including all taxes. He also claimed that the shop in dispute, in fact, is owned by Waqf No.185 and further claimed that there was a dispute relating to mutwalliship. Accordingly, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also disputed that he refused to receive notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and claimed that the endorsement of refusal was obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.