Facts of the Case
The dispute concerned property bearing Municipal
No. 6-2-1 (Old) / 6-2-2 (New), situated at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, admeasuring
1103.70 square yards. Respondent No. 1 was the Muttawalli of Masjid-e-Hussaini.
His father, who owned the property, agreed to dedicate the property as Waqf
Alal Aulad for the purpose of completing the construction work of Hussaini
Masjid at Lakdikapul Cross Roads, Hyderabad, and executed a waqf deed
containing stipulated terms and conditions.
The principal purpose of the waqf deed was to
facilitate completion of the construction of Hussaini Masjid, which was
accordingly constructed. Subsequently, the property was leased to Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for establishment of a petroleum retail outlet.
The lease was granted on 01.03.1965 at an initial
monthly lease amount of Rs. 500, which was stated to have been enhanced from
time to time. The original lease term expired on 01.03.1985 and was apparently
renewed for another ten years with effect from 01.03.1985. A notice terminating
the lease was issued on 27.06.1994, resulting in the litigation.
Respondent No. 1 initially instituted O.S. No. 181
of 1998 before the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. After
constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the suit was transferred and renumbered as
O.S. No. 94 of 2000. The Waqf Tribunal passed an award on 10.03.2005, which was
challenged in C.R.P. No. 2198 of 2005. The High Court set aside the award and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Thereafter, in O.S. No. 94 of 2000, the plaintiff
filed I.A. No. 189 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC,
seeking return of the plaint for presentation before the competent civil court.
The Waqf Tribunal granted the relief on 11.06.2012. The plaint was then
represented before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and on
14.09.2012 was taken on file as O.S. No. 671 of 2012.
The trial court passed a judgment and decree against
the defendant and granted several reliefs. Aggrieved by that judgment and
decree, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. preferred the present appeal.
During pendency of the appeal, however, the parties amicably resolved the
long-standing dispute and drafted compromise terms on 19.11.2022.
Issues
Involved
The principal issues arising from the proceedings
were:
- Whether the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 671
of 2012 could be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between
the parties during pendency of the appeal.
- Whether the lease of the waqf property in favour of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. could continue for the agreed further period
under the compromise arrangement.
- Whether lease rent could be paid directly by the appellant to
Respondent No. 1, with Respondent No. 2/Waqf Board having no objection to
such direct payment.
- What monthly rent and periodic enhancement would govern the renewed
lease arrangement.
- Whether Respondent No. 1 remained obligated to comply with the
terms of the Waqf Deed, including the stipulated contribution to the Waqf
Fund.
- Whether Respondent No. 1 could approach the Waqf Board for release
of money already deposited with the Board.
Appellant’s
Arguments / Stand
The appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd., through learned counsel, participated in the compromise and agreed to
resolution of the appeal in accordance with the negotiated terms.
Under the compromise terms extracted by the High
Court:
- the lease period in respect of the appeal schedule property was to
be extended for a further period of 10 years, effective from the
date of entering into the agreement;
- the agreement was to be entered into by Respondent No. 1 and the
appellant within six months;
- the appellant was to pay lease rent from November 2022 directly
to Respondent No. 1;
- the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 1,80,000, exclusive of GST and
TDS; and
- the rent was to be enhanced upon expiry of every three years by
15% on the preceding month’s rent.
The compromise terms were enclosed with the
affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2 of 2022, which was deposed to by the
Chief Regional Manager–Retail of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Respondents’
Arguments / Stand
Respondent No. 1 agreed to the compromise and to
disposal of the appeal by taking note of the settlement terms. Respondent No. 1
was also personally present before the Court.
Respondent No. 2, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf
Board, had no objection to the appellant paying rent directly to Respondent
No. 1.
At the same time, the compromise specifically
preserved Respondent No. 1’s obligation to comply with the terms and conditions
of the Waqf Deed dated 04.02.1967, more particularly the contribution of 7%
of Waqf Fund on 50% of rental income to Respondent No. 2, as recorded in
the extracted compromise terms.
The respective counsel agreed to disposal of the
appeal by taking note of the compromise recorded between the parties.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Telangana High Court recorded its satisfaction
that the long-pending dispute, dating back to the 1990s, had been amicably
resolved and that the litigation was thereby brought to an end.
The Court extracted the material compromise terms
and disposed of the City Civil Court Appeal having regard to those terms. The
operative arrangement recognised, inter alia:
- extension of the lease for a further period of 10 years,
effective from the date of entering into the agreement;
- execution of the agreement between the concerned parties within six
months;
- direct payment of lease rent from November 2022 by the
appellant to Respondent No. 1;
- absence of objection by Respondent No. 2 to such direct rent
payment;
- continued compliance by Respondent No. 1 with the Waqf Deed dated
04.02.1967;
- monthly rent of Rs. 1,80,000, exclusive of GST and TDS; and
- rent enhancement of 15% after expiry of every three years,
calculated on the preceding month’s rent.
The High Court further clarified that Respondent
No. 1 was at liberty to approach the Waqf Board to receive the money already
deposited with the Waqf Board.
Accordingly, the City Civil Court Appeal was
disposed of, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed. The
concluding page records disposal of the appeal without costs.
Important
Clarification
A significant textual distinction appears within
the order itself and should be preserved accurately.
In the narrative portion of the order, the Court
records that the compromise contemplated a monthly lease amount of Rs.
1,80,000, a fresh lease commencing from 01.11.2022, enhancement at 10%
after every five years, advance rent for twelve months, and registration
charges.
However, the actual compromise terms later
expressly extracted by the High Court state that:
- the further lease period would be 10 years from the date of
entering into the agreement;
- monthly rent would be Rs. 1,80,000 exclusive of GST and TDS;
and
- rent would be enhanced every three years at 15% on the preceding
month’s rent.
Therefore, for accurate reporting, this internal
distinction must not be obscured. The Court ultimately disposed of the appeal “having
regard to the terms of compromise extracted above”, making the expressly
extracted terms particularly material to understanding the operative disposal.
Sections / Legal
Provisions Involved
Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Statutory provision governing appeals from original decrees; the City
Civil Court Appeal was instituted under this provision.
Order XLI Rule 1, CPC – Governs the form and procedural requirements relating to an appeal
from an original decree.
Section 151, CPC – Inherent
powers of the Court; invoked in the interlocutory applications, including the
request for judgment and decree according to the compromise and the request
concerning payment of monthly rent/damages.
Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC – Invoked before the Waqf Tribunal for return of the plaint for
presentation before the competent civil court.
Waqf Deed dated 04.02.1967 – Material to the continuing obligations of Respondent No. 1 under the compromise, including the recorded Waqf Fund contribution arrangement.
Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783153679_857compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information
and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the
information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment