Hon’ble S.P. Mahrotra, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 2.12.2002 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition).

3. The dispute relates to a shop bearing No. 1811 situated in Mohalla Munna Lal, Kasba Mawana, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as “the disputed shop”.

4. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that Mohd. Umar filed a Suit against Mohd. Sabir, inter alia, for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. The said Suit was filed by the said Mohd. Umar in his capacity as Mutwali Waqf Al-al-Aulad created by Sri Abdul. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 171 of 1995.

5. It further appears that during the pendency of the said Suit, the said Mohd. Umar expired on 12.7.1997, and Mohd. Irshad (Respondent No. 1 herein) was substituted as Mutwalli of the said Waqf Al-al-Aulad of the said Sri Abdul. Copy of the plaint of the said S.C.C. Suit No. 171 of 1995 has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

6. It was, inter alia. alleged in the said Suit that the defendant Mohd. Sabir was the tenant of the disputed shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-; and that Sri Abdul created Waqf Al-al-Aulad in respect of the disputed shop and other properties and that after the death of Sri Abdul, his eldest son Mohd. Umar became Mutwalli of the said Waqf Al-al-Aulad, and in his capacity as Mutwalli, the said Mohd. Umar was realizing Rs. 100/- per month from the defendant Mohd. Sabir as rent of the disputed shop; and that after the death of the said Mohd. Umar on 12 7.1997, his eldest son Mohd. Irshad became Mutwalli as per clause 2 of the Waqfnama dated 1-10-1934.

7. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said Suit that the said Mohd. Umar determined the tenancy of the defendant Mohd. Sabir by a notice dated 4.7.1995 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; and that the said notice was received by the defendant Mohd. Sabir on 9.7.1995. and as such, the tenancy of the defendant Mohd. Sabir stood determined after 8.8.1995. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said Suit that the rent for the period from 1.3.1995 to 8.8.1995 was due from the defendant Mohd. Sabir which was not paid by the said Mohd. Sabir, nor did the said Mohd. Sabir vacate the disputed shop.

8. The said Suit was contested by the said Mohd. Sabir. Written statement was filed on behalf of the said Mohd. Sabir, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

9. It was, inter alia, admitted by the defendant Mohd. Sabir in the said written statement that he was tenant of the disputed shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 100. However, the defendant Mohd. Sabir denied that the disputed shop was Waqf property. It was further denied by the defendant Mohd. Sabir that the said Mohd. Umar was the Mutwalli of Waqf. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the written statement that the disputed shop was not the property of the Waqf AI-al-Aulad.

10. Evidence was led by both the sides in the said Suit.

11. The learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut, by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000, decreed the said Suit. It was, inter alia, held in the said judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 that the Waqfnama of 1934 (paper 24 Ga) was admissible in evidence ; and that in an earlier Suit No. 180 of 1987, the defendant Mohd. Sabir had accepted the disputed property to be Waqf property. It was, inter alia, further held in the said judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 that merely because Waqf was not recorded in the Nagar Mahapalika records, it could not be accepted that the Waqfnama was never acted upon; and that the mutation in Nagar Mahapalika records is only for purposes of realization o