Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Possession Decree in Favour of Punjab Wakf Board; Holds Notice Valid and Estate Officer Competent to Institute Proceedings
Case Name: Onkar Nath (deceased) through LRs vs. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt.
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: RSA No. 2723 of 1994
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below, which had decreed possession and arrears of rent in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board. The Court held that the tenancy had been lawfully terminated through a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; that the Estate Officer acted within duly delegated statutory authority to institute the suit; and that no substantial question of law arose warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Summary: The Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit seeking recovery of possession and arrears of rent with respect to a shop situated at Bahadarpur Chowk, Hoshiarpur, which was a notified Wakf property. The defendant was a tenant from 1964 at a rent of ₹8 per month. The Wakf Board terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice dated 09.11.1987 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the tenant failed to vacate. The tenant admitted the tenancy but challenged the legality of the notice and contended that the Estate Officer lacked authority to initiate proceedings. It was also argued that the tenancy fell under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, thereby ousting civil court jurisdiction.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the notice terminating the tenancy had been validly issued through counsel acting under the directions of the Secretary of the Wakf Board. They further held that the Estate Officer had been vested with authority to institute suits pursuant to a Gazette Notification dated 16.04.1987 delegating powers to him, subject to prior approval of the Secretary, which approval had been granted by letter dated 22.12.1987. The courts below also found that the shop, being a notified Wakf property, was excluded from the Rent Restriction Act by virtue of a notification issued under Section 3, and therefore the civil court had jurisdiction.
In the second appeal, the appellant reiterated that the notice was invalid and that the Estate Officer lacked competence. The High Court rejected both contentions. It held that dispatch of the notice by registered post satisfied the statutory requirement of communicating the intention to terminate tenancy. The sequence in which internal administrative formalities were completed did not vitiate the notice. The Court also reaffirmed the settled principle that even assuming technical defects, the filing of the suit itself amounted to termination of the tenancy, as held in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal and Nopany Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF).
On the question of authority, the Court examined the Gazette Notification delegating powers to Estate Officers and the Secretary’s subsequent written approval. It concluded that both statutory and administrative requirements stood fulfilled. The appellant had produced no evidence to rebut the documentary authorisation. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below rested on proper appreciation of evidence and contained no perversity or illegality.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees dated 10.09.1992 and 21.07.1994 granting possession and arrears of rent to the Punjab Wakf Board were affirmed.