A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in a suit for injunction filed before the Wakf Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 2nd respondent Wakf Board is the 2nd defendant in the suit. Challenge herein is against the temporary injunction order passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner.

2. 1st respondent's case in the injunction petition is as follows: The shop building described in the plaint schedule, situated in Kozhikode City, belongs to a Wakf. 1st respondent/plaintiff is a Wakf Trust represented by the Secretary. Plaintiff is in management of the Wakf properties. Predecessor of the revision petitioner took the shop room on rent from the muthavalli of the Wakf as per an agreement on 15.09.1973. Revision petitioner is running a printing press in the tenanted premises. Another suit was filed against the revision petitioner by the Wakf, seeking eviction from the premises. On 19.06.2012, the 1st respondent/plaintiff noticed the revision petitioner taking hasty steps for materially altering the structure of the tenanted shop room. Revision petitioner removed the windows of the rooms and attempted to change the roofing. They intended to construct a new structure. Hence the suit is filed for permanent prohibitory injunction along with the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Revision petitioner/1st defendant filed a counter affidavit raising the following contentions: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Dispute in the suit is relating to the rights and liabilities arising out of landlord-tenant relationship between the Wakf and the revision petitioner. 1st respondent/plaintiff suppressed the factum of dismissal of eviction suit, O.S.No.13 of 2006 by the court. 1st respondent is not an entity coming under the Trusts Act, 1882 and therefore, it has no legal personality to institute a suit in its own name. It is also contended that if at all a trust was formed, it is incompetent to represent or act on behalf of a Wakf. To the knowledge of the revision petitioner, no scheme has been framed by the Wakf Board in relation to the Wakf in question. The suit should have been filed before a civil court and not before the Tribunal. Revision petitioner has not made or attempted to make any new construction. No material alteration of a permanent nature affecting the stability of the structure was contemplated or carried out. The suit and injunction application are legally and factually not maintainable.

4. We heard the learned counsel Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar, for the 1st respondent and Sri.K.Shibili Naha, Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board.

5. Law is trite regarding the issues to be considered in a temporary injunction application. Court will have to consider initially whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case to claim temporary injunction. Secondly, it will have to consider the balance of convenience to determine in whose favour it lies and thirdly, who will suffer irreparable injury or loss, if temporary injunction is either granted or disallowed. It is also axiomatic that the purpose of temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter in dispute as it existed on the date of institution of the suit.

6. Fundamental question raised by Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the Tribunal erred in holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is specifically contended by the revision petitioner that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and another (2010 (4) KLT 765). It is further contended that the Tribunal should have followed the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gobindram (deceased by Lrs.) v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (AIR 2010 SC 2897). Learned counsel f