1. The writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 25th May, 1995 passed by Appellate Court i.e. 10th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing rent appeal no.217 of 1992 and setting aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 29th October, 1992, as a result whereof accommodation in dispute has been released in favour of applicant-respondents.

4. The dispute relates to house no.51/3 (New no.51/7) situated at Ramganj Kanpur. The property in dispute is a wakf property i.e. Wakf Nawab Mohammad Muzaffar Ali Khan and its mutwalli was Nawab Mohammad Murtaza Ali Khan, Son of Mushtafa Ali Khan. The applicant-respondents Prahlad Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Kumar Gupta purchased the property in dispute with alleged permission of Wakf Board vide sale deed dated 6.4.1983. It was pleaded that property is required for personal use by purchaser- landlords and therefore, they sought its release vide application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972").

5. The petitioners contested application and besides other also pleaded that applicants are not owners and landlord of disputed premises, inasmuch as, being a Wakf property, it could not have been sold. There is no valid permission obtained from Wakf Board and alleged sale deed do not confer any right upon applicants to claim ownership on property in dispute. Though applicants' claim that property was sold after obtaining permission from Wakf Board, but, admittedly, no document showing such permission was placed before the Court below.

6. The Trial Court i.e. Prescribed Authority, held that applicants have no claim over property in dispute and alleged permission dated 21.1.1981, (photocopy whereof was filed), was not proved, inasmuch as, original document was not produced. Reference of alleged permission document was not found mention in the sale deed and photocopy of the document was not reliable. The release application of landlord, therefore, was rejected by Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Court, however, referring to a judgment of this court in Ram Dhani Vs. Janki Rai Singh and Ors., AIR 1972 All 553 has said that even if property of Wakf has been transferred by sale without any permission of Board, such transfer is not per se illegal or nullity, and, so long as such transfer is not set aside, it would be valid. Accordingly Appellate Court held applicants owner and landlord of property in dispute and proceeding further, recorded findings, upholding claim of personal need and hardship, and allowed appeal vide judgment dated 25.5.1995.

7. Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that transfer of property, which belong to Wakf, by way of sale shall not be valid without previous sanction of Wakf Board notwithstanding anything contained in deed or instrument, if any. He further contended that it is not that any Wakf property can be sold but only such kind of property of Wakf which contains a stipulation in Wakfnama that for the interest of beneficiaries for whom Wakf is created, if necessity arise, property may be alienated by way of sale etc., and only such property can be transferred by sale and not otherwise and that too after a previous permission from Board and not. In respect to other Wakf, once a Wakf is created, it is always a Wakf and therefore, even a Mutwalli has no authority or power to transfer immoveable property constituting a wakf, to any third party. Any such sale is patently illegal and void. He submits that Appellate Court has completely failed to consider the ma