Short Note : Two persons Hafeez Yusuf and Irshad Ali claiming to be members of Masjid Committee appointed by the followers of Islam religion of Mandi Sehore, to manage the Masjid properties filed this suit against the defendant for arrears of rent and ejectment. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was a tenant of the Masjid in the suit block on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-, the tenancy commencing on the 1st of each calendar month. The defendant failed to pay arrears of rent for 34 months from 1-11-1966 to 31-8-1969 amounting to Rs. 136/-, a demand notice, Ex.P-1, dated 5-9-1969 was served on him on 9-9-1969. By this notice, his tenancy was also determined w.e.f. 31-10-1979. Since the defendant failed to comply with the notice, the present suit has been filed for his ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent and also for recovery of the arrears. The defendant in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that Hafeez Yusuf and Irshad Ali have no authority to file this suit against him. According to him, the suit block is owned by the Masjid and since he has deposited all arrears of rent the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. 2. The learned trial Judge framed a preliminary issue to the effect whether Hafeez Yusuf and Irshad Ali have got a right to institute the instant suit and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been held that the defendant neither tendered the rent within two months of the service of the notice, Ex.P-1, but he failed to comply with section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. A Decree for arrears of rent, ejectment and mesne profits has, therefore, been passed against the defendant. In appeal the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the short ground that Hafeez Yusuf and Irshad Ali had no right to file this suit and it could be filed by the Wakf Board in view of section 15(2)(i) of the Wakf Act, hence this second appeal. Held : Mutawali is authorised to represent all interests in the Wakf and he can take such steps as are necessary for the proper management of the Wakf property. He is entitled to sue for possession though the property is not vested in him. Held : Mutawali is authorised to represent all interests in the Wakf and he can take such steps as are necessary for the proper management of the Wakf property. He is entitled to sue for possession though the property is not vested in him. This position is not changed even after the enactment of the Wakf Act, 1954. Under section 15(2)(i) it is the function of the Wakf Board to institute and defend suits and proceedings in a Court of law relating to Wakf. This provision has to be read along with Chapter VII of this Act. One of the functions of the Board is to appoint Mutawali for management and supervision of the Wakf properties. Under the circumstances, the Mutawali is certainly authorised to do all acts reasonable and proper for the protection of the Wakf property and for the administration of the Wakf. So his rights for instituting and defending suits on behalf of the Wakf are not taken away under the Act. Irshad Ali being the Mutawali has right to file the suit. The suit filed in the name of the Masjid through the Mutawali is properly framed and no capital can be made out simply because Irshad Ali has not been described as Mutawali. 3. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the present suit is competent and Mutawali is authorised to file the suit in the name of the Masjid for eviction of the defendant and also for recovery of the arrears of rent and mesne profits. 4. The respective provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 discussed. AIR 1922 PC 123 Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami and AIR 1939 PC 185 Saadat Kamal v. A.G. Palestine relied On. Appeal allowed.