HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4452, 4469 and 4512 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: Having regard to the point which is same in all these three matters, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The A.P.State Wakf Board filed three suits viz., O.S.No.146 of 2000, 139 of 2000 and 150 of 2000 for eviction of three different tenants in the Wakf properties concerned therein and the said suits were filed in the A.P.Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995( for short ‘the Act’). 3. The Wakf Tribunal by its separate judgments dismissed all the three suits only on the ground that a Mutawalli has been appointed for each of the properties and therefore he alone should bring the suit for eviction and not the Wakf Board. 4. It must be mentioned here that in C.R.P.Nos.4469 of 2005 and 4512 of 2005, it is seen that the concerned Mutawalli filed petition for impleading himself as 2nd petitioner in the said C.R.Ps, in order to cure the defect pointed out by the Wakf Tribunal. However, having regard to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in C.R.P.No.4512 of 2005, the impleadment of the Mutawallies in the above two C.R.Ps does not make any difference to the result of these matters. 5. The contention of the Wakf Board in all these three C.R.Ps, which it filed against the dismissal of the above three suits respectively, is that since the Wakf Board is given overall control and superintendence over the Wakf properties, it can also independently bring a suit for eviction, without joining the Mutawalli in the suit or even in the case of the failure of Mutawalli to bring a suit for eviction. This contention of the Wakf Board is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party in all the C.R.Ps. However, having regard to the latest judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Ramesh Gobindarm (dead) through Lrs. Vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf[1] relied upon by Sri Zakir Ali Danish, it is laid down that the Act does not provide for bringing a suit for eviction of a tenant in a Wakf Tribunal and consequently such suit is governed by the concerned law of tenancy applicable to the case and should be filed only in a civil Court. A perusal of this decision shows that it is squarely supports the above contention of Sri Zakir Ali Danish. 6. Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, representing the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board-petitioner says that there is no dispute about the above proposition of law laid down in the above case decided by the Supreme Court. He however pointed out that the Wakf Board has filed a petition before the Supreme Court for reviewing the above judgment and that it is also taking steps to amend the Wakf Act to provide for bringing suits for eviction against tenants also before the Wakf Tribunal and therefore these three C.R.Ps should be kept pending. This contention cannot be accepted. It may be noted that as and when the Wakfs Act is amended to provide for filing of suits of this type also in the Wakf Tribunal or the above Supreme Court judgment is reviewed as contented by him, it is always open for the Wakf Board to file fresh suits. Accordingly, in the above circumstances as the suits themselves are not maintainable in the Wakf Tribunal as on today, as held by our apex Court in the above decision, it follows that these three C.R.Ps have to fail on that ground alone, irrespective of the reason given by the Wakf Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, all the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 4th February, 2011 VJL [1] 2010(5) A.L.T 36 (SC)