JUDGMENT

1. We have heard Counsel on both sides in this appeal and have some to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is wrong and matt be set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored.

2. The suit was a suit in ejectment brought by two plaintiffs, Baijnath and L. Bankey Lal.

3. It appears that there is in Agra a body known as the Islamia Committee which is entrusted with the duty of looking after the Jama Masjid.

4. It appears that attached to the Masjid there are certain shops and for the purpose of providing funds for the upkeep of the mosque, it has been the practice of this Committee to wake arrangements for the leasing out of these shops so as to secure a regular income.

5. In their plaint the plaintiffs staled that they were the lessees of these shops on behalf of the Islamia Committee under a lease executed in their favour for a period of five years with effect from the 1st April 1919. The allegation was that Muhammad Ismail was in possession at the time the lease was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. He was told to quit but refused to give up possession: hence this suit for ejectment and also for damages in the way of rent for ocaupation.

6. The defendant took a number of pleas. He asserted, in the first pleas, that the plaintiffs had no title to bring a suit as they were not lawfully lessees on behalf of the Islamia Committee. It was pleaded that the Islmia Committee had no power to give these plaintiffs a lease for the shops for a period of five yean. The defendant also denied that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs, Farther, it was pleaded that, in any case, if he was deemed to be the plaintiffs' tenant, the suit was .not maintainable inasmuch as no proper notice to create had been given to him. The Court of first instance decreed the suit bat the lower Appellate Court has reversed the First Court's decree, and the first question we have to consider is the legal position of the plaintiffs in the present case.

7. The view taken by the Judge was that according to Muhammadan Law the mutwalli of a trust property has no authority to grant a lease of house property for a period exceeding one year. In the view of the learned Judge the Islamia Committee stood in the same position with regard to the property in question as a mutwalli. Consequently the learned Judge was of opinion that the lease in favour of the plaintiffs conveyed no valid title to them.

8. In our opinion this view of the learned Judge is erroneous.

9. We have to refer, in the first instance, to the Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810. That was a Regulation passed in order to secure the due appropriation of rents and produce of lands granted for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, colleges and other pious purposes, and from the preamble to the Regulation it is made to appear that this legislation was undertaken by reason of the fact that there was mismanagement or want of management on the part of persons responsible in connection with property which had been endowed for the upkeep of religious buildings such as those which we have mentioned. It was declared, therefore, by the Regulation (Section 2) that the general superintendence of all lands granted for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, colleges and for other pious and beneficial purposes was vested in the Board of Revenue and Board of Commissioners in the several Districts subject to the control of these Boards respectively.

10. The words of this section are as general as they can be, and it is to be noticed that the language of the section itself imports no restriction on the power of the Board of Revenue in the management of the lands referred to in the section. We may also in this connection refer to the terms of Section 4 of the Regulation which lays down that in oases where buildings have fallen into decay and cannot be conveniently repaired, the Boards shall recommend that they be sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of as may appear most expedient.

11