The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-7-2005 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No.989 of 2005 in O.S.No.361 of 2003.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner is the revision petitioner herein and he is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.361 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule shop No.15, for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,000/- as arrears of rent and for profits at Rs, 4,000/- per month with effect from 1-7-2003 by way of damages for unlawful use and occupation by the defendant. While the suit was pending adjudication before the trial Court, the defendant filed I.A.No.989 of 2005 requesting the Court to return the plaint. That application having been resisted by the plaintiff and after having heard on either side, under the impugned order, came to be dismissed. The revision petitioner is, therefore, seeking to assail the same.

3. The suit O.S.No.361 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff on the premise that she was the landlord of the demised premises and the defendant was the tenant she having let out the premises to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- with effect from 1-12-2000 and the defendant since September, 2002 continuously committed default in paying the rents; and that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2003 against the plaintiff with false allegations and obtained a temporary injunction so as to remain in possession of the property without paying any rents and, therefore, the plaintiff got a notice of termination issued terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-6-2003 and then filed the present suit for eviction, for recovery of arrears of rent and for profits.

4. The suit as framed inter alia in the plaint appears to be so simple and is in between the 146 plaintiff and the defendant inter se. There has been no whisper whatsoever about the ownership of the demised premises or any dispute with regard to the demised premises.

The defendant/revision petitioner was resisting the suit. It is thus discernible that the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.361 of 2003 on the premise that she was the landlord and the defendant was her tenant and the tenant committed default in paying the rents. The defendant, on the other hand, filed a suit against the plaintiff before the selfsame Court seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and both the suits have been coming up for adjudication before the Court below. While the things stood thus, I.A.No.989 of 2005 was filed by the defendant in the suit, as aforesaid, requesting the Court to return the plaint. The plea of the defendant seems to be that the plaintiff although claimed herself to be the landlord of the suit property, the property thus actually belongs to Wakf Board and, therefore, the dispute since arises in between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the property which is the property of the Walk Board, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction except the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act). It is further alleged that the plaintiff herself is a tenant of the demised premises having taken the same on nominal rent, sub-leased the same in favour of the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff has no title over the suit premises.

5. That application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing her counter. Her plea appears to be that the Madina Complex, Osmanpura, Karimnagar, is a wakf property and the title in respect of the said property is vested in the Wakf Board and the plaintiff never disputed the title of the Wakf Board and that a registered lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Shop No.15 leasing out the same in her favour for a period of 25 years with effect from 28-10-1984 and the lessee was duly authorized inter alia either to run her own business or to lease out the shop to some other person. Accordingly she let out the premises in favour of the defendant and, therefo