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. 

The case of the appellant was that the father of the respondent was paying rent in respect of the property where the Wakf institution is situated and was being   enhanced from time to time. The respondent, after he became a major continued the tenancy of his father in respect of the said premises and the monthly rent and the rent was being paid to the Wakf Board   since   the   institution   at   that   point   was under direct management of the Board in view of the death of the original Mutawalli i.e., the father of appellant No.2. Subsequently, appellant No.2, was appointed as the Mutawalli in place of his father. In respect of the premises in the occupation of respondents the rent was not being paid regularly, which accumulated to Rs.24,500/­. 

Despite repeated requests the respondent had not paid the arrears. The appellant No.2 got issued the legal notice terminating the tenancy   of the tenanted  and demanded to remove the encroachment. 

The respondent on receipt of the notice made payment of Rs.4,500/­ as part of the arrears of rent through a money order. All claims made by the appellants were also denied. Wakf tribunal after taking note of the rival contentions and the evidence tendered, held the issues in favour of the  appellants  and decreed the  suit  holding  the suit schedule properties to be the property belonging to the Wakf institution and directed the respondent to vacate the suit schedule properties. The  respondent  claiming  to  be  aggrieved  by  the said   judgment,   preferred a Revision Petition   under Section 83 of the Wakf Act before the High Court of Judicature at   Hyderabad. 

The High Court while averting to the rival contentions has allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the judgment passed by the Wakf tribunal. The appellants, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment are before this Court in this appeal. 

Ms   Akriti   Chaubey the learned counsel   for   the   appellants contended that   the suit schedule properties are Wakf properties and had claimed that the respondent   is   a   tenant   in   respect   of   Schedule   ‘A’ property and that he had encroached the Schedule ‘B’ property  which   also  belongs  to  Wakf  institution. The respondent counsel Mr. Raavi Venkata had contended that the suit properties are not Wakf   properties. 

The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that 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. The court noticed that a 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.

Accordingly, the supreme court set aside the order of the high court and the respondent is given three months time to vacate and handover the possession of the suit scheduled A and B subject to payment of rent including arrears.

For reading the complete judgment, please click below:-

Telangana State Wakf Board & Anr vs Mohamed Muzafar CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4522 OF 2021