JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021 in A.S.No.108 of 2015, on the file of the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2015, in O.S.No.1289 of 2011, on the file of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was confirmed.

2. Originally, the respondents herein filed O.S.No.1289 of 2011 for eviction, recovery of possession and arrears of rents and damages and it was decreed and in the appeal, it was confirmed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the first appeal, the present second appeal is filed at the instance of defendants. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the appellants herein are the defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs was that the shop bearing municipal No.13-1-1036, admeasuring 100 feet and 50 feet, which is equivalent to 555 sq. yards, situated at Masjid-e- Sultan Bagh and grave yard, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as “suit property”), was notified wakf property, by virtue of A.P. Gazettee No.27-A, dated 12.07.1984. The plaintiffs have let out the premises to the defendants for running motor work shop on monthly rent basis. Initial tenancy was from 14.05.1967 for a monthly rent of Rs.85/- and there was previous litigation in between the parties with regard to the rent. Therefore, the father of the defendants has filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 1998 on the file of the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the defendants has filed revision petition in CRP.No.4612 of 2000 and the same was dismissed. Ultimately, the suit proceedings were ended against the tenant/defendants. The defendants failed to pay rent, as such, a legal notice was issued. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed.

4. The defendants’ common pleadings show that they have not denied the tenancy, however, they denied the claim of default and arrears of rent. They had also set up a plea that the suit is barred before Civil Court by virtue of amendment of Section 83 of Wakf Act.

5. The Court below, based on the above pleadings has framed the following issues:

“1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendants from the suit schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of arrears of rents and mense profits as prayed for?

3.To what relief?”

Additional Issue:

“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit after amendment of Wakf Act, 1995, dated 23.09.2013?”

6. The plaintiffs, to support their case, examined PW1 and PW2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A26. The defendants, to support their case, examined DW1 and no exhibit has been marked.

7. The Court below, on appreciation of evidence on record found all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred First Appeal in A.S.No.108 of 2015. The First Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence found that the findings rendered by the trial Court are based on record and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 23.09.2022:

“1.Whether the amended Act of 27 of 2003, which was given with effect from 01.11.2013, making amendment to Sections 83 and 85 of WAKF Act takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of proceedings commenced anterior to the amendment?

2. Whether the amended Section 83 of WAKF Act has given retrospective effect?”

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that original Section 83(1) of Wakf Act (Act 27 of 2013) has been amended and is given effect from 01.11.2013. According to him, by virtue of this amendment, the jurisdiction