MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The instant petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Court of Small Causes in SCC Suit No.43 of 2005 and judgment and decree dated 18.9.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge SC/ST Act in SSC Revision No.13 of 2014.

2. The facts in brief relevant for deciding the instant petition are as follows:-

SCC Suit No.43 of 2005 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, which is a registered Waqf through its Mutwalli Hazi Abdul Gaffur. During pendency of the suit, he died. After his death, Mahmood Alam Qureshi was substituted in his place and he prosecuted the suit thereafter. The relief claimed in the suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') from a shop bearing No.3 in Building No.77/93 Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar. According to the plaint assertions, the property belonged to registered Waqf No.455 and the rent of the shop was Rs.300/- per month, apart from water tax and house tax payable at the rate of 18%. The defendant was alleged to be in default in payment of rent since 10.5.1998, consequently, his tenancy was terminated by a registered notice dated 7/8.10.2004 served upon him by refusal on 11.10.2004. It was further asserted that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement claiming that rent of the premises was Rs.300/- per month including all taxes. He also claimed that the shop in dispute, in fact, is owned by Waqf No.185 and further claimed that there was a dispute relating to mutwalliship. Accordingly, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also disputed that he refused to receive notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and claimed that the endorsement of refusal was obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud.

4. The trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 29.1.2014. The revision filed by the defendant was dismissed by impugned judgment dated 18.9.2018.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner took a plea before the revisional court that suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction instituted before the Court of Small Causes was not maintainable before it in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'). It is urged that the revisional court did not examine the said plea. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Waqf Dargah Shah Mohammad and others Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, (2003) 5 AWC 3469;

(2) Akhtar Vs. District Judge, (2006) 2 AWC 1489; and

(3) Haji Abdul Latif and another Vs. Azizuddin and another, (2012) LawSuit(Del) 2852.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding relating to relationship of landlord and tenant recorded by the courts below is also illegal, inasmuch as the suit property belonged to registered Waqf No.185 and not 455 nor Abdul Gaffur, who instituted the suit, was competent to file the same.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the plea relating to jurisdiction was not raised by the defendant before the trial court. Even in revision, only a ground was taken in the memo of revision but it was not pressed during course of hearing. He further submitted that the suit property belonged to Waqf No.455 as held by the courts below and the finding relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a finding of fact. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 in contending that the Court of Small Causes was competent to try the suit and not the Waqf Tribunal.

8. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (supra) considered a similar plea raised before it in relation to bar of j