Wednesday, 7 October 2020

Whether Small causes court Act can deal with the dispute between landlord and tenant after enforcement of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013?

Suit for eviction of a tenant in the State of U.P. is cognizable by Judge Small Cause under the Provincial Small Cause Act, 1971. Thus, such cases have been taken out of jurisdiction of regular civil courts and have been entrusted to Small Cause Courts for ensuring early adjudication.


39. Learned counsel would submit that in view of the amendment in the Act after terminating tenancy, tenant becomes liable for ejectment and proceeding for eviction will be undertaken under the Wakf Act (as amended in 2013). Consequently, the civil court, namely, Small Cause court will have no jurisdiction and since the decree passed by Small cause court, impugned in the revision, is without jurisdiction, same deserves to be set aside.

46. Thus, it is manifest that by means of The Wakf (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2013 word "encroacher" was defined and power has been given to Wakf Tribunal to pass order of eviction. This amendment does not say anything about the pending proceeding.


47. Suit was filed on 20th March, 2009. Amendment has come into force on 1st November, 2013. Will amendment apply to the pending cases? There is no saving Clause in Amendment Act. There is nothing in the Act which makes the Amending Act retrospective.


48. Section 5 of The Wakf (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2013 says that " In section 3 of the principal Act (I) after clause (e), the following clause shall be inserted, namely (ee) "encroacher" means any person or institution, public or private occupying waqf property, in whole or part, without the authority of law and includes a person whose tenancy, lease or licence has expired or has been terminated by mutawalli or the Board. There is no indication that this clause was sought to be made retrospective.


49. Similarly, Section 32 of the Amending Act whereby it amends Section 54 of the principal Act, says nothing that makes it retrospective. Even otherwise declaring somebody an encroacher amounts to declaring the character of a person which ordinarily cannot be done retrospectively. There is no contrary legislative intention discernible from the language of the provision.


50. Amendment of Section 54 further contemplates that application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction or removing shall be moved which means that Tribunal will start working prospectively. Section 54 (4) of the Act makes this position further clear and shows that Tribunal will work prospectively.


51. Section 56 of the Amending Act gives the overriding effect. Section 108A does not say anything about the pending proceedings. Consequently, proceedings which are pending on the date of amendment will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the prevalent law.


52. It is evident that by virtue of amendment, specific jurisdiction has been conferred on the Tribunal. Obviously, this will be prospective and in the absence of any provision for transfer of pending cases to the Tribunal, same will continue to be dealt with by the courts in accordance with the prevalent law and amendment at the most can take effect from 01.11.2013. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)


S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 2015


Decided On: 09.10.2015


 Sageer Ahmad  Vs.  Wakf Masjid Mohalla-Kazipura Wakf No. 9 and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.K. Saxena, J.

Citation: MANU/UP/1509/2015


1. This revision, filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2015 passed by Judge Small Causes/First Additional District Judge, court No. 1, Bahraich, decreeing the SCC Suit No. 5 of 2009 (Wakf Masjid Mohalla Kazipura and Anr. v. Mohd. Sageer Ahmad) for the relief of eviction from the shop and damages @ Rs. 250/- per month.


2. Briefly, stated facts in short are that a Suit was filed by Mutawalli/President of the Wakf Board before the Judge Small Causes Court seeking eviction of the revisionist Mohd. Sageer Ahmad from the shop in dispute alleging that shop was let out to revisionist @ Rs. 250/- per month, apart from house tax and water tax, defendant has paid rent upto February, 2008 but did not pay any amount towards house and water tax. He had assured to raise the rent from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1200/- per month. Increased number of devotees required additional space for offering 'Namaz'. Consequently, tenancy was terminated by giving notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on 20.11.2008 but neither he vacated the shop nor paid arrears of rent as well as house tax and water tax, hence, the Suit. A sum of Rs. 17080/- was claimed as arrears and rent was claimed @ Rs. 1500/- per month. Tenant filed written statement denying the allegations and stated that he was let out the shop @ Rs. 250/-per month which included the local taxes, he is regularly paying the rent, notice is invalid, shop has small area covered by tin-shed which is the sole source of livelihood for his family. It was taken on rent from the then Mutwalli Sri Badrul Hasan on 21.12.1996 @ Rs. 250/- per month. Rent note was also executed in respect thereof. He paid rent up to February, 2008. Landlord having refused to accept rent for March and April, 2008, he deposited the rent in the court in Misc. Case No. 123/70/2008 covering period up to October, 2009. Since disputed premises is tin-shed, no house and water tax can be charged. He never agreed to pay the rent @ Rs. 1200/- per month. Masjid is quite big to accommodate added devotees and there are number of other Masjids in that area apart from one big mosque known as 'Jama Masjid', therefore, need set up is not genuine. In fact, Mutavalli wants to give the shop to his friends or relatives on premium. Competence of plaintiff No. 2 to file the Suit was also challenged.


3. Trial court framed as many as seven issues which are being reproduced below:




4. Trial court came to conclusion that property being Wakf property, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. Defendant never agreed to pay the rent @ 1200/- per month and the rent @ Rs. 250/- per month included all taxes, notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act was validly given. Plaintiff No. 2 has right to institute a Suit and Wakf Board was not necessary party, tenancy was month to month and whether plaintiff needed the shop is not relevant for the determination of the controversy. Tenancy having been terminated, landlord was entitled to get the relief of eviction. With these findings, Suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.05.2015 which has been impugned in this revision.


5. I have heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate for respondent-plaintiff.


6. Sri A.R. Khan fairly conceded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable, as such, question of default or need are not relevant. He vehemently submits that Judge Small Causes has no jurisdiction in view of the amended provisions of Wakf Act, 1995. Wakf tribunal alone has jurisdiction to entertain Suit for eviction of the tenant.


7. Contention is that Section 3(ee) of the Act defines the word 'encroacher'. Mutwalli of the Board has been given power to evict the encroacher under Section 54 of the Act. Moreover, Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court or any other court for entertaining any dispute or other matter which requires under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. Submission is that since Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995 is competent to pass an order for eviction/ejectment and there being specific bar of other courts, Judge Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. Consequently, decree passed by Judge Small Cause Court is nullity.


8. Although, this very point was not taken before the court below but since the question goes to the root of the matter and absence of jurisdiction makes a decree nullity, which can be challenged everywhere, this Court proposes to deal with the argument in some detail.


9. Before entering into the controversy, it is necessary to examine the corresponding provisions of Wakf Act. Matters pertaining to Wakf property were governed by the Wakf Act, 1954 which was substituted by Wakf Act, 1995 ('Act, 1995') with a view to ensure better administration of Wakf and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.


10. Section 6 & 7 of the Act are relevant and are being reproduced below:


"Section 6:-- Disputes regarding wakfs- (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final:


Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section and section 7, the expression "any person interested therein", shall, in relation to any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs published after the commencement of this Act, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under section 4.


(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit.


(3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder.


(4) The list of wakfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision or the Tribunal under Sub-section (1), be final and conclusive.


(5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1).


Section -7 Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs : (1) If, after the commencement of this Act, any question arises, whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs is wakf property or not, or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf, or any person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final: Provided that-


(a) in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published after the commencement of this Act no such application shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs; and


(b) in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, such an application may be entertained by Tribunal within the period of one year from such commencement:


Provided further that where any such question has been heard and finally decided by a civil court in a suit instituted before such commencement, the Tribunal shall not re-open such question.

(2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of sub-section (5), no proceeding under this section in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by any court, tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any suit, application or appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, application, appeal or other proceeding.


(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be made a party to any application under sub-section (1).


(4) The list of wakfs and where any such list is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1), the list as so modified, shall be final.


(5) The Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine any matter which is the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced in a civil court under sub-section (1) of section 6, before the commencement of this Act or which is the subject-matter of any appeal from the decree passed before such commencement in any such suit or proceeding or of any application for revision or review arising out of such suit, proceeding or appeal, as the case may be."


11. It is clear from the above provisions that whether property is Wakf property and the nature of Wakf can exclusively be determined by the Tribunal and in this regard no Suit or other proceeding can be instituted before a civil court.


12. Section 85 which has been relied upon by Sri Khan is reproduced below:


"85. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts:--No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal."

13. Bare reading of Section 85 shows that matters which are cognizable by Tribunal like Wakf nature of, Wakf property or other matter etc., jurisdiction of civil court is expressly barred.


14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through L.R.s v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf MANU/SC/0659/2010 : [(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 726] while interpreting above provisions in paragraph 25 and 28 has held as under:


"Para-25: Whenever a question arises whether "any dispute, question or other matter" relating to "any wakf or wakf property or other matter" falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court the answer would depend upon whether any such dispute, question or other matter is required under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. If the answer be in the affirmative, the jurisdiction of Civil Court would be excluded qua such a question, for in that case the Tribunal alone can entertain and determine any such question. The bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 85 is in that sense much wider than that contained in Section 6(5) read with Section 7 of the Wakf Act. While the latter bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in relation of questions specified in Sections 6(1) and 7(1), the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 85 would exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts not only in relation to matters that specifically fall in Sections 6 and 7 but also other matters required to be determined by a Tribunal under the Act. There are a host of such matters in which the Tribunal exercises original or appellate jurisdiction."


Para-28: Section 85 of the Act clearly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings in relation to orders passed by or proceedings that may be commenced before the Tribunal. It follows that although Section 85 is wider than what is contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts even under Section 85 is not absolute. It is limited only to matters that are required by the Act to be determined by a Tribunal. So long as the dispute or question raised before the Civil Court does not fall within four corners of the powers vested in the Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the former to entertain a suit or proceedings in relation to any such question cannot be said to be barred."


15. In paragraph 34 and 35, the question has been specifically answered by Apex Court. These paragraphs are being reproduced below:


"Para-34: The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded.


Para-35: In the cases at hand the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal."


16. It has been clearly held in paragraph 35 that Suit seeking eviction of tenant from the Wakf property can be filed before civil court and not before Tribunal but controversy does not rest here as Mr. Khan would submit that aforesaid decision did not consider the definition of encroacher contained in Section 3(ee) of the Act.


17. It appears that certain amendments were made in Wakf Act, 1995, in the year, 2013. Section 3(ee) has been added by amendment which defines the 'encroacher' as under:


"Section 3(ee): "Encroacher" means any person or institution, public or private, occupying waqf property, in whole or part, without the authority of law and includes a person whose tenancy, lease or licence has expired or has been terminated by mutawalli or the Board;"

18. Section 54 enables the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board to serve a notice upon encroacher, call upon him to show cause and after considering the objections and conducting enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, if he is satisfied that property in question is Wakf property and there is encroachment, he may, by an order, require the encroacher to remove such encroachment and deliver the possession of the land, building, space or other property to the Mutawalli of the Wakf.


19. Section 54 of the Act is being reproduced below:


"54. Removal of encroachment from wakf property:


Whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers whether on receiving any complaint or on his own motion that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property which is wakf property and, which has been registered as such under this Act, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling upon him to show cause before a date to be specified in such notice, as to why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date so specified should not be made and shall also send a copy of such notice to the concerned mutawalli.


The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed.


If, after considering the objections, received during the period specified in the notice, and after conducting an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is wakf property and that there has been an encroachment on any such wakf property, he may, by an order, require the encroacher to remove such encroachment and deliver possession of the land, building, space or other property encroached upon to the mutawalli of the wakf.


Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall prevent any person aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Executive Officer under that sub-section from instituting a suit in a Tribunal to establish that he has right, title or interest in the land, building, space or other property:


Provided that no such suit shall be instituted by a person who has been let into possession of the land, building, space or other property as a lessee, licensee or mortgagee by the mutawalli of the wakf or by any other person authorised by him in this behalf."

20. Submission of Sri A.R. Khan is that determination of lease or licence or tenancy makes erstwhile lessee an encroacher, liable to be evicted under Section 54 of the Act.


21. Further submission is that amended Act provides special procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupant/encroacher, as such, Small cause court would cease to have jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act.


22. Argument, prima facie, has substance.


23. Observation of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 35 of the judgment given in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra) proceeds on the premises that Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant.


24. Submission of Sri Khan is that in view of the amendment carried out in the Act, the power has come to Tribunal to evict an encroacher in the Wakf Act itself, as such, the ratio laid down in Paragraph 35 of the judgment is no more applicable.


25. In the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another v. Anis Fatma Begum and another [MANU/SC/0970/2010 : 2010(14) SCC 588], Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 16 as under:


"In view of the above, we are of the opinion that since the matter fell under the purview of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, and not the Civil Court."

26. Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another v. Anis Fatma Begum and another [MANU/SC/0970/2010 : 2010(14) SCC 588], while discussing the ratio of the decision given in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra) held in para 17 of the judgment that eviction proceeding can only be decided by civil court and not by the Wakf Tribunal.


27. Similarly, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee v. P.V. Ibrahim Hazi and others MANU/SC/0758/2013 : [2013(31) LCD 1616], held that to decide dispute with regard to the management and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and Madrassa and the assets which relate to Wakf, Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction.


28. Thus, there is no direct decision of Hon'ble Apex Court or this Court saying that Suit for eviction will be maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal and not before the civil court.


29. Learned counsel has placed Section 111 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act which bars jurisdiction of the civil court from entertaining any dispute in respect of Cooperative Society. Reference has been made to the case of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and others [MANU/SC/0369/1975 : (1976) 1 SCC 496].


30. Similar view has been taken in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & others MANU/SC/7040/2007 : [JT 2007(2) SC 566].


31. Eviction from public premises can be undertaken only under the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupant) Act, 1971 as held in the case of Hari Singh and others v. The Military Estate Officer [MANU/SC/0614/1972 : AIR 1972 SC 2205] and in the case of Northern India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd. and another v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0283/1967 : AIR 1967 SC 1581]


32. Sri Khan also cited decisions reported in MANU/SC/0083/2003 : [2004(22) LCD 178] Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal and Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others [MANU/SC/0116/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 340] wherein it has been held that decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity and objection to this effect can be raised at any stage.


33. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/0291/1998 : (1998) 4 SCC 409] Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and another and also Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others [MANU/SC/0168/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 422] and submitted that Supreme Court has no power to punish an Advocate as detailed procedure has been prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961.


34. In view of above decisions, submission of Sri A.R. Khan is that in view of the amendment of Wakf Act, 1995, civil court or judge small cause did not have any power to try the Suit for eviction from Wakf Property and decree passed by civil court is nullity. He would further submit that once the mode is prescribed to do a thing, in a particular manner, thing has to be done according to that mode or not at all.


35. So far as the proposition that a thing has to be done according to mode prescribed or not at all, there is no second opinion about it and this is settled position.


36. It is also settled that plea of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and a decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity and can be challenged in any proceeding.


37. Ouster of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be easily inferred. Unless there is implied or express bar, civil court will continue to have jurisdiction.


38. Suit for eviction of a tenant in the State of U.P. is cognizable by Judge Small Cause under the Provincial Small Cause Act, 1971. Thus, such cases have been taken out of jurisdiction of regular civil courts and have been entrusted to Small Cause Courts for ensuring early adjudication.


39. Learned counsel would submit that in view of the amendment in the Act after terminating tenancy, tenant becomes liable for ejectment and proceeding for eviction will be undertaken under the Wakf Act (as amended in 2013). Consequently, the civil court, namely, Small Cause court will have no jurisdiction and since the decree passed by Small cause court, impugned in the revision, is without jurisdiction, same deserves to be set aside.


40. Hon'ble S.U. Khan (J) in the case of Wakf Allah Tala Malik Wakf Alalaulad Kayam Karta Karim Bux Haji Karim and Mst Munisunnisa Wakf Nos. 193-A and 271-Ex II MANU/UP/1455/2007 : [2007 (69) ALR 876], has held in paragraph 6 that Sections 54 and 55 of the Wakf Act are not meant for eviction of lessees, licensees or mortgagees as "under the definition Clause of Waqf Act, encroachment has not been defined".


41. From the above, it is manifest that view of Allahabad High Court is that Suit pertaining to eviction is not cognizable by the Wakf Tribunal and Section 54 of the Act cannot be pressed into service. But this decision will still be a good law, needs to be examined in view of Section 3(ee) of Act.


42. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra) has held that Suit for eviction is maintainable only before Civil Court and not before Tribunal because there was no provision.


43. Thus, now questions to be determined are:


"(a) whether Wakf Act, 1995 as amended by Act No. 27/2013 will be applicable to Suit or proceedings for eviction of tenant (pending or filed) before the commencement of Amending Act?


(b) whether after commencement of Amending Act (27 of 2013) regular civil courts (Small Cause Courts in U.P.) are not competent to entertain and try Suit for eviction of tenant/lessee or licensee?"


44. Amendment of the Wakf Act (Amendment) (Act No. 27/2013) came into force with effect from 01.11.2013.


45. By Section 5 of the principal Act, Section 3 of the principal Act was amended and 3(ee) defining the word 'encroacher' was inserted. In Section 7 of the principal Act for the word "any question", the words " any question or dispute" were substituted. In Section 54 of the principal Act in sub Clause (3) for the words "he may, by an order, require the encroacher to remove", the words "he may, make an application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction of removing" have been substituted. Sub Section 4 & 5 have already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment.


46. Thus, it is manifest that by means of The Wakf (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2013 word "encroacher" was defined and power has been given to Wakf Tribunal to pass order of eviction. This amendment does not say anything about the pending proceeding.


47. Suit was filed on 20th March, 2009. Amendment has come into force on 1st November, 2013. Will amendment apply to the pending cases? There is no saving Clause in Amendment Act. There is nothing in the Act which makes the Amending Act retrospective.


48. Section 5 of The Wakf (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2013 says that " In section 3 of the principal Act (I) after clause (e), the following clause shall be inserted, namely (ee) "encroacher" means any person or institution, public or private occupying waqf property, in whole or part, without the authority of law and includes a person whose tenancy, lease or licence has expired or has been terminated by mutawalli or the Board. There is no indication that this clause was sought to be made retrospective.


49. Similarly, Section 32 of the Amending Act whereby it amends Section 54 of the principal Act, says nothing that makes it retrospective. Even otherwise declaring somebody an encroacher amounts to declaring the character of a person which ordinarily cannot be done retrospectively. There is no contrary legislative intention discernible from the language of the provision.


50. Amendment of Section 54 further contemplates that application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction or removing shall be moved which means that Tribunal will start working prospectively. Section 54 (4) of the Act makes this position further clear and shows that Tribunal will work prospectively.


51. Section 56 of the Amending Act gives the overriding effect. Section 108A does not say anything about the pending proceedings. Consequently, proceedings which are pending on the date of amendment will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the prevalent law.


52. It is evident that by virtue of amendment, specific jurisdiction has been conferred on the Tribunal. Obviously, this will be prospective and in the absence of any provision for transfer of pending cases to the Tribunal, same will continue to be dealt with by the courts in accordance with the prevalent law and amendment at the most can take effect from 01.11.2013. A reference can be made to the case of Sardar Khan and others v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and others (supra).


53. Since revision can be disposed of on the above ground, there is no need to decide the second question which is left open for decision in appropriate case.


54. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, Amending Act does not affect the pending proceeding, as such, it is not open to contend that after the enactment of The Wakf (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2013, the courts which were seized with the eviction proceeding, ceased to have jurisdiction.


55. In the instant case, Suit had been filed much before the commencement of Amending Act and was pending on 01.11.2013, as such, Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to proceed with it and decide the same. Consequently, decree passed by court below cannot be assailed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.


56. No other point has been canvassed.


57. Revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed.



Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment