ORDER :

1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.07.2012 in I.A. No. 541 of 2011 in O.S. No. 121 of 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby the petition filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) requesting to return the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction, was allowed.

2. The brief facts which led to filing of this revision are that the revision petitioner and other plaintiff (since died) filed a suit against the respondent/defendant under Section 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession and for past and future profits. In the plaint, it is inter alia contended that the 1st plaintiff is a notified Mutawalli of Ashoor Khana known as Khader Vali Dargah and Peerla Chavidi situated at Sullurpet, Nellore District and the suit schedule property is a Wakf property and the defendant was a tenant therein having obtained it on rent from the 1st plaintiff. The defendant who was residing in the suit schedule property filed I.A. No. 541 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to return the plaint with a direction to present the same before an appropriate forum for want of jurisdiction of the tribunal. The plaintiffs resisted the same by filing a counter. The Tribunal following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 (3) ALT 36 (SC) had allowed the application holding that a civil Court is only having jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit schedule property, which is a wakf property and the wakf Tribunal is not having jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereof, the 2nd plaintiff filed this civil revision petition.

3. Heard Sri. A.M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of defendant from a wakf property inter-alia alleging that the defendant is a tenant in the suit schedule wakf property having obtained the same on rent from the 1st plaintiff, who is mutawalli of the wakf institution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred to supra held thus:

“A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed.”

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision, has clearly laid down that a suit seeking eviction of the tenant from what is admittedly a wakf property could be filed only before a civil Court and not before a Tribunal. Therefore, the Court below is justified in holding that the tribunal has no jurisdiction and only a civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Subsequently, in the year 2013 the Wakf Act was amended by the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act 27 of 2013) and under the amended new provision of Section 83(1) of the Act, a suit for eviction of the tenant from a wakf property is maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal. Section 83(1) of the Act, which came into force on 20.09.2013, reads thus:

“The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determin