Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal, J., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the First Appellate Court being unreasonable.
The facts of the case are such that the suit accommodation was of one Abdul Wahid Khan who sold the property to plaintiffs vide sale deed and got themselves registered in the Municipal Corporation Assessment Register. The said accommodation was rented as a shop to defendant 1 who was supposed to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff after the sale which he failed to do upon which notice for eviction was sent to him. Thereafter a suit was filed under Section 12(1) (a), (c), (f) and (g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 by the plaintiffs opposing which defendant stated that the plaintiff has no right over the title of the property under Section 43 and Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as it is a wakf property and Abdul Rehman was only a muttawali. The trial court granted a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs being aggrieved by which civil appeal was preferred against the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court allowed both the appeals and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit property is wakf property; therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by Section 85 of the Wakf Act. Assailing this order, present second appeal was filed.
Issue 1: Rules of Evidence vis a vis Waqf Deed
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the first appellate Court has clearly erred in holding that the suit property is wakf property by relying upon Exhibit D/10 which is the copy of the alleged wakf deed as it is not primary evidence, being a copy made from the copy of the original document, and no foundation was laid for leading secondary evidence and hence Section 90 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable as for its applicability, the foundation has to be laid to lead secondary evidence.
The Court relied on judgment Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta Kalita, (1996) 8 SCC 357 wherein it was held that
“17. The position since the aforesaid Privy Council decisions being followed by later decisions of different High Courts, is that presumption under Section 90 does not apply to a copy or a certified copy even though thirty years old: but if a foundation is laid for the admission of secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by proof of loss or destruction of the original and the copy which is thirty years old is produced from proper custody, then only the signature authenticating the copy may under Section 90 be presumed to be genuine.”
The Court observed that Section 65 of the Evidence Act permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the seven exceptional cases in which secondary evidence is admissible. The conditions laid down in the said section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for n the section.
The Court thus held that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the suit property is a wakf property, as such, the suit property has not been proved to be wakf property in absence of foundation for leading secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis a vis Section 85 of the Waqf Act
It was further submitted that the instant suit was filed before the trial court on 06-10-1995 and the Wakf Act came into force w.e.f. 22-11-1995 and though defendant 2 was impleaded as a party/defendant in the suit vide order, since the suit had already been instituted prior to coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995, therefore, by virtue of Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the suit is not barred by Section 85 of the Wakf Act.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that with regard to the question as to whether the suit property is a wakf property has to be decided only by the Wakf Tribunal after coming into force of the Wakf Act w.e.f. 22/11/1995, as such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is absolutely barred by virtue of Section 85 of the Wakf Act. It was further submitted that even if it is held that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is not applicable, then also by virtue of Section 55C of the Wakf Act, 1954, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by virtue of Section 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1994.
The Court relied on judgment Taraknath v. Sushil Chandra Dey, (1996) 4 SCC 697, B.P. Pathak v. Dr Riyazuddin Haji Mohammad Ali, 1975 SCC OnLine MP 50, Sardarilal v. Narayanlal, 1979 SCC OnLine MP 25 and Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, (1996) 6 SCC 373 and observed that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act i.e. TP Act and the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the M.P. High Court in the aforecited judgments, it is quite vivid that Section 109 of the TP Act creates a statutory attornment and by virtue of the transfer of leased property, transferee ipso facto acquires all the rights of the lessor, and a new relationship is created between the transferee and the lessee.
Issue 3: Meaning of the term ‘if he is the owner thereof’
The Court relied on judgments Apollo Zipper India Ltd. v. W. Newman and Company, (2018) 6 SCC 744 and observed the term ‘if he is the owner thereof’ used in Section 12(1) (f) of the Act of 1961 to in an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant under the rent laws when the issue of title over the tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit. It was further held that the burden of proving the ownership in an eviction suit is not the same like a title suit.
The Court thus held that
“Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid meaning and definition of the term ‘if he is the owner thereof’ used in Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 and the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and the M.P. High Court in that behalf, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from the erstwhile owner Abdul Wahid Khan vide Exhibits P1(c) and P3(c) and thereafter became the owner of the suit property and also the landlords of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs have clearly stated that they have no other alternative suitable accommodation in the township of Bilaspur and the suit accommodation is required bonafidely for starting his business, though a lengthy cross-examination has been made but nothing has been brought out to demonstrate that either their need of the suit accommodation is not bona fide or they have any other alternative suit accommodation in the township of Bilaspur to fulfill their bona fide need. As such, the plaintiffs have successfully proved the fact that the suit accommodation has admittedly been let out by the erstwhile owner Abdul Wahid Khan for non residential purpose to the tenant/defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs needs the suit accommodation for starting their business and he has no other alternative accommodation for carrying out their business in the township of Bilaspur, therefore, the ground under Section 12(1) (f) of the Act of 1961 is established. However, I do not find any ground established under Section 12(1) (c) and (g) for evicting the defendant 1 from the suit accommodation.”
In view of the above, appeals were allowed and impugned judgment was set aside.[Jaipal Choudhary v. Chhattisgarh Waqf Board, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1179, decided on 14-12-2020]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together