G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1976 passed by the Civil Judge, raichur, in RA No. 120 of 1975, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1975 passed by the Munsiff, Raichur, in OS No. 519 of 1972 on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF insti tuted the suit for possession of the suit shop. The suit shop is a Wakf property created by the Muslims for the benefit of Masjid Kotatlar, Raichur. Plaintiff Shaik AH is the Chairmaa of the Managing Committee of the said mosque. The said shop is a part of the mosque. Defendant 1 took the said shop on rental from plaintiff Shaik AH by a lease deed dated 10 10 1969 for eleven months at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. Even on the expiry of the said lease period, he is continuing in possession, by holding over on the basis of the oral lease, the tenancy being from month to month. Defendant 2 is the brother of defendant 1 and he has a pawn shop on the 'katta' of the said shop. He is a sub tenant under defendant 1 without the consent of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that a new Mosque is being constructed in the place of the old Mosque and the Managing Committee wants to convert the existing shop into a house. Hence the plaintiff demanded of the defendants to vacate the suit shop ; but, they avoided. On obtaining the consent of the wakf Board, the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants. The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, do not apply to the Wakf property under the management of the plaintiff/board. The tenancy of the defendants was terminated in accordance with law. Since the defendants refused to vacate, the suit for eviction was filed. ( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement. According to them, the suit was not maintainable as it was not under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Besides, the Karnataka State Boerd of Wakfs had directed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. ( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement. According to them, the suit was not maintainable as it was not under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Besides, the Karnataka State Boerd of Wakfs had directed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The suit shop was not under the management of the Wakf Board. They denied that there was any sub letting to defendant 2. The notices to them, according to them, were not valid. ( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings : (1) Whether Shaik AH is competent to file this suit ? (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons alleged in the written statement ? (3) Whether defendant 1 proves that bis signature was taken to a blank proforma lease deed and that his tenancy was for five years ? (4) Whether the tenancy has been validly terminated ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits ? If so, at what rate ? (7) What order ?the following additional issue was also raised by the trial Court : (1) Whether the suit shop is not managed by the State Board of Wakfs and, therefore, the suit is barred by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and that this Court has no jurisdiction ? ( 5 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the negative. It answered Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. In that view, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil Judge, Raichur, in RA No. 120 of 1975, on his file. The learned Civil judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following points as arising for his consideration : (1) Whether the suit it not maintainable as contended by the defendants ? (2) Whether the suit filed in the name of the Wakf Board by Shaik Ali is proper ? (3) Whether defendant 2 proves that the lease deed Is for a period of 5 years, as contended ? (4) Whether tke tenancy is validly terminated ? (2) Whether the suit filed in the name of the Wakf Board by Shaik Ali is proper ? (3) Whether defendant 2 proves that the lease deed Is for a period of 5 years, as contended ? (4) Whether tke tenancy is validly terminated ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession and mesne profits, as alleged? (6) Whether the lower Court's judgment and decree are justified or require interference ? (7) What order and decree ? ( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge, reassessing the evidence on record, answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative. He answered Points nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the negative. According to him, Point No. 4 did not arise for consideration. In that view, the learned civil Judge dismissed the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come up with the above second appeal before this Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the Courts below were not justified in holding that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, applied to the facts of the case. He further submitted that the tenancy was properly terminated and the suit was instituted by the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs and, as such, it should have been decreed by the Courts below. ( 8 ) AS against that, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents/ defendants argued supporting the judgment and decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the first Appellate Court. ( 9 ) THE preliminary point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: 'whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit for eviction was not maintainable, being barred by the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 ?' ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant invited my attention to S. 2 (7) (bb) (iv) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, which reads :"nothing in this Act shall apply xx x x (bb) to any premises belonging to x X X (iv) a Wakf under the management of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. x x x" ( 11 ) RELYING on this provision, he submitted that the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, were not attracted to the facts of the case. x x x" ( 11 ) RELYING on this provision, he submitted that the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, were not attracted to the facts of the case. ( 12 ) THE Courts below, however, have held concurrently that the property in question is not managed by the Karnataka state Board of Wakfs and, as such, the provision contained in S. 2 (7) (bb) (iv) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 13 ) IT is necessary to recall in this context that S. 2 (7) (bb) (iv) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, clearly states that the provisions of the Act would not apply to any premises belonging to a Wakf under the management of the Karnataka State board of Wakfs. It is obvious that 'management' is something different from mere 'supervision'. ( 14 ) THIS High Court in the case of rachorla Chanuamallappa v. Sree Nagareswaraswamy Temple (1), has clarified the distinction between management and mere supervision. His Lordship Sadanandaswamy, J. , as he then was, ruling on this aspect, has stated :"s. 2 (7) (bb) (iii) exempts 'muzrai' institutions under the management of state Government from the Act. The power of management includes control or supervision and the power of administration, but the power to control or supervise cannot be equated to management. Management of 'muzrai' institutions must be understood as day-to day administration of the temple. Thus, where the day-to-day administration is vested in the trustees, the temple cannot be said to be in the management of the government merely because it exercises powers of control and supervision witk regard to its budget, accounts and finance etc. " ( 15 ) THESE observations apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. Power of superintendence and control would not amount to management, management being the administration of day-to-day affairs of the Wakf. " ( 15 ) THESE observations apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. Power of superintendence and control would not amount to management, management being the administration of day-to-day affairs of the Wakf. ( 16 ) S. 15 of the Wakf Act, 1954, states:"functions of the Board : (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all wakfs in a State shall vest in the board established for the State ; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as to ensure that the wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such wakfs were created or intended. " ( 17 ) THE Wakf Act, 1954, also contemplates direct management of the Board in certain circumstances. That is contemplated in S. 43a (1) of the Aet, which reads:"assumption of direct management of certain waifs by ths Board. :where no suitable person is available for appointment as a mutawalli of a wakf under S. 42 or under sub-section (2) of S. 43, the board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, assume direct management of the wakf for such period or periods, not exceeding in the aggregate five years, as may be specified in the notification. " ( 18 ) THUS, it is obvious that the mere power of superintendence is different from management directly by the Board. This position is further made clear by the deposition of the Inspector under the board, who is examined in the case as dw 5. He is Inspector cum Auditor of raichur Wakf Committee. He has clearly stated that there are six institutions viz. , (1) Jame Masjid, Sharof Bazar, Raichur; (ii) Station Masjid, Raichur ; (iii) Hasmiya masjid ; (iv) Hazarat Darga Bade Sab yergera ; (v) Durga Shamshalam Hussaini, raichur, and (vi) Hussaini Aslam Ashurkhan, mudgal, under the direct management of the Board and that he collects the rent and gives receipts on printed receipts for and on behalf of these institutions. He has produced the receipt books at Exhibits d 16 to D 19. He has produced the account books at Exhibit D -20 for the year 1972 73. He has produced the receipt books at Exhibits d 16 to D 19. He has produced the account books at Exhibit D -20 for the year 1972 73. ( 19 ) IT is seen that no account of the present Wakf viz. . Koth Talar Mosque, raichur, is mentioned in the books of account. He is not managing this mosque. It is managed by the 'mutawalli' who has instituted the present suit. The evidence of DW 5 thus makes it clear that the present plaintiff institution is not managed by the Karnataka State Board of wakfs. That being so, it is obvious that the present plaintiff institution cannot claim exemption from the provisions of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, under S. 2 (7) (bb) (iy) of the Act. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit for eviction of the tenants, not instituted under the pro-visions of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961, was not maintainable. ( 21 ) IN that view, the other points would not arise for consideration and any finding given by the Courts below on the other points are obviously without jurisdiction. ( 22 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .