TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD versus SYED ABDUL QUADER & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1211 · Decided: 09-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1211 
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD 
v. 
SYED ABDUL QUADER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2232-2233 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 9, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Tenancy - Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 -
ss.9 and 11 - Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) 
Act, 1994- s.3- Proceedings initiated by tenant-respondents C 
under s.9 of the 1921 Act in respect of land owned by 
appellant-Wakf Board and pending before the court - Effect 
of coming into force of the 1994 Amendment Act - Held: In 
view of s. 3 of the 1994 Amendment Act, the application made 
under s.9 of the 1921 Act abated by operation of law and the 
D 
tenant-respondents ceased to have any enforceable rights in 
respect of such land. 
The plaintiff-Wakf Board (alongwith Aminjikarai 
Mosque and Burial Ground represented by its Secretary) 
E 
filed suit for a declaration that the suit property (land and 
superstructure) was a Wakf property and for directing the 
tenant-defendants to hand over vacant possession of the 
suit property to them. The tenant-defendants set up the 
defence that they were governed by Madras City 
Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 as amended from time to 
F 
time and in the absence of any notice under Section 11 
of the 1921 Act, the suit was not maintainable. They 
further stated that they had made an application under 
Section 9 of the 1921 Act for sale of the land on which 
superstructure had been built by their predecessor in title G 
and as lessees they were entitled to purchase the land 
from the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' 
suit. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. On 
1211 
H 
1212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 SC R 
A 
second appeal, the High Court remanded the matter to 
the trial court to proceed further with the application made 
by the tenant-defendants under Section 9 of the 1921 Act. 
The plaintiffs filed Review Petition, bringing to the notice 
of the High Court that by virtue of Section 3 of the Madras 
B 
City Tenants' Protection {Amendment) Act, 1994, the 
rights and privileges of the tenant-defendants had ceased 
to be enforceable and their application under Section 9 
of the 1921 Act had abated. The Review Petition was 
dismissed by the High Court and, therefore, the present 
c appeals by the plaintiff-appellant Board. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 
1921 came to be amended by the Madras City Tenants' 
D Protection {Amendment) Act, 1994. Section 3 of the 1994 
Amendment Act leaves no manner of doubt that all 
proceedings initiated by tenants under the 1921 Act in 
respect of lands owned by religious institutions or 
religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian 
E 
or other religion and pending before courts or authorities 
or officers on coming into force of 1994 Amendment Act 
have abated and the tenants in respect of such lands 
have ceased to have any enforceable rights. By virtue of 
Section 3 of the 1994 Amendment Act, whatever rights 
F 
and privileges the tenants had in respect of the lands 
mentioned therein stood determined. The expression 
'every proceeding' is too wide to include the proceedings 
initiated by the tenants under Section 9 of the 1921 Act. 
[Paras 11, 12] [1216-D; 1217-A-C] 
G 
2. In view of Section 3 of the 1994 Amendment Act, 
the application made by the tenant-defendants under 
Section 9 of the 1921 Act which is said to be pending 
before the trial court does not survive and by operation 
of law that application has abated. It is strange that when 
H Second Appeal was heard by the High Court, none of the 
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD v. SYED ABDUL 
1213 
QUADER & ORS. 
parties brought to the notice ·of the Single Judge of the A 
High Court the provisions of the 1994 Amendment Act. 
In the Review Petition, the provisions of the 1994 
Amendment Act were expressly referred to, but the single 
Judge referred to Section 2 only and did not advert to 
Section 3 at all. [Para 13] [1217-D-F] 
B 
3. The requirements of Section 3 of the 1994 
Amendment Act are fully met in the present case but this 
aspect was not considered by the High Court on both 
occasions, while disposing of Second Appeal as well as C 
Review Petition. The Interlocutory Application made by 
tenant-defendants under Section 9 of the 1921 Act has 
abated by operation of law and does not survive for 
consideration by the trial court. By virtue of Section 3 of 
the 1994 Amendment Act all rights and privileges 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.