Rajesh Bindal - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Court below whereby the suit filed by the petitioner for possession and permanent injunction was dismissed.
(2.) THE claim was made by the petitioner on the ground that the property in question was leased out to him. He had even deposited the lease money for the period 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (` 100/- application fee + ` 10,000/- donation fee + ` 6,000/- each as lease money for the years 2001-02 and 2002-2003 + ` 6,100/- lease money for the year 2003-2004 = total ` 28,200/-). But he was never handed over the possession of the property in question though the lease money for three years was deposited with the Haryana Wakf Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though no amount was deposited by the petitioner after 2003-2004, still the property in question was not leased out by the Wakf Board to any one till date. He is still ready and willing to deposit the lease money if the possession of the property is given to him. He further submitted that a specific finding has been recorded by the learned court below that the petitioner was never given the possession of the suit property as it remained in possession of Gulzar Singh and prior to that with Naranjan Singh and presently with Mohinder Singh and Nirmal Singh, who have been impleaded as defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. In the alternative, he submitted that once it has been recorded by the learned court below that the possession of the property was never handed over to him, he is entitled to return of lease money along with interest.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the Wakf Board submitted that the property owned by the Wakf Board is leased out on year to year basis. Initially, it was leased out to the petitioner for 2001-2002 and thereafter extended twice for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Though the lease money was deposited but he could not dispute the fact that a specific finding has been recorded by the learned Court below to the effect that possession of the property was never handed over to the petitioner. The learned court below has also observed in the order that the petitioner- plaintiff shall be at liberty to claim refund of the lease money deposited by him with the Wakf Board. As far as the claim of the petitioner regarding possession of the property in question is concerned, the submission is that once the petitioner has not deposited the lease money after the year 2004-05 onwards, he cannot be put in possession of the property at this stage.;