JUDGMENT Syamal Kumar Bose, who is the opposite party No. 1 in these two Rules has instituted two suits respectively against Sabitri Bala Ghosh, opposite party No. 2 in Civil Rule No. 3172 of 1975 and Sudhir Kumar Mondal, opposite party No. 2 in Civil Rule No. 3473 of 1975 for eviction from the premises described in the plaints of the two suits on the allegation that the respective defendants were monthly tenants under him and that they had committed default in payment of rent for more than two months. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that he had terminated the tenancies of the respective defendants by service of notices to quit and they are liable to be ejected under Section 13 (1) (i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Said Sabitri Bala Ghosh and Sudhir Kumar Mondal filed written statements in the respective suits contesting the above claim of the plaintiff, Syamal Kumar Bose, interalia, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 2. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 2172 of 1975 has himself stated that the Trial Court by its order dated 29th September, 1970 in Title Suit No. 43 of 1970 (now numbered as Title Suit No. 32 of 1974) has already decided the Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, Syamal Kumar Bose. The learned Munsif has, interalia, held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant of the said Title Suit No. 43 of 1970 and also of another suit which was being analogously heard with the Title Suit No. 32 of 1974. Further, A.K. Sinha, J. discharged the Civil Rules Nos. 515 and 516 of 1971 obtained respectively by Sabitri Bala Ghosh and another against the above order of the Trial Court dated 29th September, 1970. The learned Judge was not inclined to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A. K. Sinha, J. declined to express any opinion on the point raised by the learned lawyer for the petitioner in those two Rules but the same did not mean that the point regarding relationship was kept open for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. A. K. Sinha, J. declined to express any opinion on the point raised by the learned lawyer for the petitioner in those two Rules but the same did not mean that the point regarding relationship was kept open for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. At the highest the said Issue No. 1 was left open for decision by the Appellate Court in a future appeal, if any, from the decree in terms of Section 105 of the Code. 3. The Commissioner of Wakfs, who is the petitioner in these two Rules filed applications under Section 71 of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 read with Order 1, rule 10 (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for impleading him as a defendant in aforesaid two ejectment suits filed by the opposite party No. 1, Syamal Kumar Bose against Sabitri Bala Ghosh and Sudhir Kumar Mondal. The Commissioner of Waks claimed that the premises in respect of which these two ejectment suits have been brought was dedicated as a wakf by one Achia Khatun by a registered deed dated 27th September, 1946. It was further alleged that Achia Khatun and her husband, Syed Ahmed were previously joint Mutwallis of the said wakf estate. After the death of Achia Khatun, Syed Ahmed had become the sole Mutwalli. In the middle of 1363 B S Syed Ahmed left India. He has fraudulently sold the disputed property to one Khagendra Nath Dutta and one Satyendra Nath Dutta by a registered kobala dated 31st July, 1953. Subsequently, there was a partition in respect of the above property between Khagendra Nath Dutta and Satyendra Nath Dutta. On 29th September, 1961, Satyendra Nath in whose share the property fell sold the property to Syamal Kumar Bose. The above wakf estate, however, was enrolled under Section 44 of the Bengal Wakf Act read with Section 46(A) by an order passed by the Commissioner of Wakfs of 29th May, 1970. The name of Abdul Ajij was recorded as the Mutwali appointed under Section 40 of the Wakf Act. The Commissioner prayed that he may be impleaded as a defendant in the aforesaid suits brought by Syamal Kumar Bose. The name of Abdul Ajij was recorded as the Mutwali appointed under Section 40 of the Wakf Act. The Commissioner prayed that he may be impleaded as a defendant in the aforesaid suits brought by Syamal Kumar Bose. The learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Basirhat, by the orders complained of rejected the above application of the Commissioner of Wakfs under Section 71 of the Bengal Wakf Act read with Order 1, Rule 10 (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Wakfs obtained these Rules. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsif has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law by refusing the prayer of the petitioner for adding him as a defendant in the two ejectment suits brought by Syamal Kumar Bose. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Commissioner of Wakfs under Section 71 has been given a paramount right to intervene in any suit or proceeding in respect of a wakf or any wakf property by or against a stranger to the wakf or any other person. Mr. Mukherjee contended that so long as the aforesaid order under Section 46(A) of the Bengal Wakf Act stands the suit property must be considered as a wakf property and, therefore the Commissioner should be allowed to intervene in the two ejectment suits in the interests of the wakf in question. 5. In my view, the learned Munsif has acted in accordance with law by refusing the prayer of the Commissioner of Wakfs for granting him leave to intervene in the two ejectment suits in question. No doubt Section 71 of the Bengal Wakf Act confers a right upon the Commissioner of Wakfs to intervene in suits and proceedings in respect of a wakf or a wakf property. The expression 'in respect of' has a wide amplitude and it encompasses different kinds of suits or proceedings relating to or concerning a wakf or a wakf property. M.C. Ghosh anti B. K. Mukherji, JJ. in (1) Commissioner of Wakfs Bengal v. Munshi Abbas Ali and others, reported in AIR 1937 Calcutta 150 held that Section 71 gives a substantive right to the Commissioner and the same is not merely procedural and, therefore, the said provision in not retrospective. Mr. M.C. Ghosh anti B. K. Mukherji, JJ. in (1) Commissioner of Wakfs Bengal v. Munshi Abbas Ali and others, reported in AIR 1937 Calcutta 150 held that Section 71 gives a substantive right to the Commissioner and the same is not merely procedural and, therefore, the said provision in not retrospective. Mr. Mukherji, learned Advocate for the petitioner has correctly pointed out that section 71 may be attracted not only in a case where the existence of the wakf or wakf property are admitted but also in a case where the party asserts existence of a wakf property or existence of a wakf and the other party denies and disputes the same. In other words, even in cases involving disputed claims, the Commissioner may intervene under Section 71 of the Bengal Wakf Act in order to conduct or defend such suit or proceeding. The observations of the Division Bench regarding the scope of section 70 of the Bengal Wakf Act in (2) Benoy Kumar Acharjee Choudhury and others v. Ahammad Ali and others, AIR 1942 Calcutta 467 would be also apposite in interpreting the scope of Section 71. 6. At the same time, the Court can not permit the Commissioner to intervene under Section 71 unless the requirements of Section 71 are fulfilled. It may be pointed out that Section 71 provides intervention by the Commissioner of Wakfs in a suit in respect of a wakf property in the interests of the wakf. The object of Section 71 is protection of the interests of the wakf. Thus the Court may allow the Commissioner of Wakfs to join either as a plaintiff or a defendant in a suit or proceeding in respect of a wakf or a wakf property in order to preserve and protect the interests of the said wakf. Section 71 contemplates those suits which are likely to affect the interests of a wakf or a wakf property. As a necessary corollary, it should be held that when the interests of a wakf is not in dispute and the Court is not called upon to decide whether a property is a wakf property or not. Section 71 is not attracted and the Commissioner cannot intervene, Further, the Court before permitting the Commissioner to intervene under Section 71 must be prima facie satisfied that the suit in question is in respect of a wakf or a wakf property. Section 71 is not attracted and the Commissioner cannot intervene, Further, the Court before permitting the Commissioner to intervene under Section 71 must be prima facie satisfied that the suit in question is in respect of a wakf or a wakf property. When the interests of a wakf are not likely to be affected section 71 does not apply. The question of existence of a wakf or a wakf property in a particular case may not be at all raised by the plaintiff or the defendant or the parties may be precluded by the principles of resjudicata or by the doctrine of estoppel from agitating the said question. In such cases the Court may legitimately refuse permission to the Commissioner to intervene. On the other hand, when a decision in a suit is likely to affect a wakf or a wakf property, the Commissioner of Wakfs is a proper party and he may be allowed under Section 71 to be impleaded as a party to enable the Court to effectually determine the question in controversy in the presence of the Commissioner of Wakfs. Section 71 is a measure for protection of the interests of wakfs. When a wakf or a wakf property is not going to be affected, the Commissioner can not claim that he should be joined as a party in a suit or proceeding under Section 71. As already observed where no decision is possible or permissible in law regarding the question whether a property is a wakf property or not it would be futile to permit the Commissioner to intervene under Section 71. Needless to say, even if the Commissioner is not permitted to join under Section 71, it is open to him to proceed under Section 72 of the Act and institute a suit or proceeding for the reliefs mentioned in Section 72. The Commissioner may also take recourse to other provisions of the Bengal Wakf Act which may be applicable. B.K. Mukherjea and Blank, JJ. in (3) Gouri Sankar v. Commissioner of Wakf, Bengal, AIR 1943 Calcutta 240 at pages 242-43 while considering the scope of Section 70(2) of the Bengal Wakf Act made observations which may be with equal force applied in the interpretation of Section 71 of the Act. 7. B.K. Mukherjea and Blank, JJ. in (3) Gouri Sankar v. Commissioner of Wakf, Bengal, AIR 1943 Calcutta 240 at pages 242-43 while considering the scope of Section 70(2) of the Bengal Wakf Act made observations which may be with equal force applied in the interpretation of Section 71 of the Act. 7. In the instant cases the defences of the defendants in the two ejectment suits against delivery of possession have been already struck off under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In one of the ejectment suits, the Issue No. 1 regarding relationship of landlord and tenant has been already answered in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. At least in the Trial Court the said Issue No. 1 cannot be reagitated. In the above view the Trial Court at this stage of the suits can not again enter into the validity of the derivative title of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1. At present there is no scope in the two ejectment suits to raise and decide whether the suit property is a wakf property or not. The addition of the Commissioner of Wakfs as a defendant in the two ejectment suits at this stage would serve no purpose. Needless to say, that it is open to the Commissioner of Wakf to take recourse to other proceeding according to law for establishing his allegation that the property is a wakf property. I express no opinion on the question whether or not the property is a wakf property. 8. I, accordingly, discharge these two Rules without costs. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below.