S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board is the intervenor of Title Eviction Suit No. 19 of 2003 which was filed by O.P. No. 1 for eviction of O.P. No. 2 under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity).

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.2.2005 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Additional Second Munsif, Patna, rejected its petition dated 1.9.2004 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and sec. 151, CPC for impleading the petitioner as intervenor-defendant No. 2 in the said suit.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the aforesaid intervention petition was only contested by the plaintiff and the defendant had no concern with it. In the said circumstances, there is no necessity of sending any notice to opposite party No. 2 whereas the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has already appeared in this revision and is contesting the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Wakf Board is a necessary party for the purposes of the suit as the property involved was a Wakf property which is apparent from the deed of Wakf dated 28.8,1827 as well as from the Wakf Register and other relevant documents. Hence, according to him, the impugned order of the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and perverse.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party No. 1 submits that the said documents did not contain the wakf property. But this statement is completely unsubstantiated as nothing has been brought on record to even show how the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 came to know about it. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 further submits that the suit concerned is a suit for eviction and not a suit for declaration of title and hence the question of title can not be decided in detail.

7. In this connection, learned counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party No. 1 relies upon several decisions including the decision of this Court in case of Sheonath Prasad Gupta and Ors. V/s. Krishna Prasad and Ors. reported in 1989 BLJ 448, on the basis of which he submits that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the intervention petition of the intervenor-petitioner who wanted to get a decree on the basis of title in a suit for eviction.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party No. 1 in case of Sheonath Prasad Gupta (supra) is with respect to Eviction suit concerning personal properties and not the properties of any wakf or of any Trust, hence it can not be applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in case of personal properties only relationship of land-lord and tenant has to be seen under the provisions of the Act but in case of Wakf or Trust properties, sec. 32 of the Act applies which provides that the Act would not apply in case of Wakf or Trust or Government properties.

9. sec. 90 of the Wakf Act, 1995 provides that in every suit or proceeding relating to a title to or possession of a Wakf property or the right of a mutawalli or beneficiary, the Court or Tribunal shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. Whereas sec. 92 of the said Act provides that in any suit or proceeding in respect of a Wakf or any Wakf property the Board may appear and plead as a party to the suit or proceeding. It may be noted here that in the said provisions of the Special Act no distinction has been made regarding the Title Suit or Eviction Suit and hence in every suit or proceeding with respect to the property of Wakf, the Board has to be noticed or impleaded.

10. Further, this Court in case of Maulvi Roza Ansari and Ors. V/s. Shyamlal Sah reported in 1983 BBCJ, 433, had held that it is the Wakf Board alone which can