Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20.In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents are indeed, the owners of the tenanted premises. On a perusal of the Will dated 10.2.1979, this Court finds that respondent No.1 who is the Mutawalli, has been specifically empowered to sue and participate in legal proceedings for the _______________________________________________________________________ benefit of the Wakf. For the tenant to contend that since the Wakf property vests in God Almighty, a Mutawalli cannot sue for eviction of a tenant from the Wakf property is both preposterous and untenable. Although it is true that the beneficiaries of the Wakf cannot claim any title in the Wakf property and cannot alienate the same except by due procedure, but the Wakf property is necessarily to be used for the benefit of the beneficiaries. For achieving this objective, the settlor of the Wakf-alal-aulad was conscious enough to appoint a Mutawalli to administer the Wakf property. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that Mohammad Qamar (supra) could not have been relied upon by the learned ARC since it has been overruled in Moattar Raza (supra). However, it is evident from the impugned orders that the learned ARC's conclusion was not wholly based upon Mohammad Qamar (supra). The ARC had merely perused the same which was sought to be relied upon by the respondents. The reliance on Moattar Raza (supra) would also not help the case of the petitioners since it is distinguishable on facts. Although Moattar Raza (supra) did hold that a Wakf property vests in God Almighty but as discussed hereinabove, the concept of ownership under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has to be seen _______________________________________________________________________ from a limited perspective. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC apropos the issue of ownership.