Compliance with statutory directions, jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and determination of maintainability after evidence is presented.

1. As the questions involved in all the civil revisions applications being one and the same and the parties also being the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Out of 20 civil revision applications, 10 have been filed by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf Board) and remaining have been filed by the tenants. They have challenged the common order dated 2.5.2001 passed in the Title Eviction Suits by the court below allowing, the prayer of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and holding that the defence of the tenants be struck off for non-compliance of the order passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to pay future rent, rejecting their objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit and also rejecting the prayer made by the Wakf Board to re-hear the matter under Section 15 of the Act as earlier order was passed before its addition as a party.

3. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present applications are that the plaintiffs/ opposite parties filed title eviction suits against the tenants. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed a petition under section 15 of the Act for direction to the tenants to pay arrears of rent as well as the current rent. The Court below by a common order dated 26.8.1999 directed for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent. The said order was challenged before this Court in Civil Revisions and the Civil revisions applications were dismissed. Thereafter, the tenants moved before the Apex Court by filing SLP (Civil) Nos. 9369, 13513-13517/2000 giving rise to Civil Appeals No. 4864, 4865-69 of 2000. It appears that while the matter was pending before the Apex Court, the Wakf Board was added as a party on 19.8.2000. The tenants before the Apex Court asserted that they have paid the rent in past to the Wakf Board, real owner of the entire property and as such the direction of the trial Court to again pay arrears of rent to the plaintiffs will amount to paying double payment of rent for the same period. The Apex Court having noticed that the Wakf Board has been added as party and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and the Wakf Board, finally disposed of the matter on 4th September, 2000. It directed that so far as arrears of rent are concerned, any monies or rents which has already been paid to the Wakf Board treating the Wakf Board as a landlord will have to be given credit to by the trial Court. The same will be without prejudice to the contentions of the landlord and accordingly it set aside the order with regard to payment of arrears of rent and directed the trial (sicCourt ?) to go into the above question again. So far the order of the trial court with regard to future rent passed under Section 15 of the Act is concerned, the order was upheld.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court, the trial Court has disposed of the matter with regard to arrears of rent.

5. The tenants also filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the suits as according to them, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the specific bar created under Section 32 of the Act which provides that the Act is not applicable with regard to buildings owned by the Government and trust including the Wakf Board. It was also stated that the question of maintainability be decided first before proceeding with the suit.

6. The plaintiffs-landlord on the other hand stated that the suit was maintainable as the property is not a Wakf property. Alternatively, it was stated that no notification under the Wakf Act has been issued nor any Tribunal has been constituted to decide the controversy as such the suit is not barred.

7. The trial Court having considered the matter rejected the prayer of the tenants by order dated 18.9.1999 and held that the qu