JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, A.C.J. - The nine petitioners in writ petition No. 4490 of 1976 and petitioner Nathu in writ petition No. 4484 of 1976 claim to be tenants of certain shops and a house along with open piece of land appurtenant there to situate in Mohalla Jogipura as well as that of a house in Mohalla Kaboolpura in the city of Budaun. The Assistant Custodian of Enemy property/Tehsildar Budaun claimed that the said properties were enemy properties and had vested with the Custodian. He, accordingly, issued notices dated 13-6-1975 to the petitioners to file their objections, if any, failing which he would treat the property as enemy property and would act accordingly. The petitioners filed their objections on 26-6-1975 wherein they denied that the said properties were enemy properties and asserted that they were Waqf properties which were being managed by the U.P. Sunni Central Board of the Waqfs, Lucknow. They further claimed that they were the tenants thereof and had been paying rent to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow. The Assistant Custodian Enemy properties then issued notices dated 10-9-1976 informing the petitioners that the properties in question were infact enemy properties and that they were in unlawful possession thereof. He called upon them to show cause why they should not be dispossessed from the properties. Again the petitioners filed their objections before the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property reasserting that the properties were not enemy properties and that the petitioners were the tenants and were paying rent to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs. The Assistant Custodian of Enemy property, after considering the objections raised by the petitioners and obtaining a report from the Naib Tehsildar, came to the conclusion that the properties in question were infact enemy properties and vide his order dated 23-9-1976 he declared the same as enemy properties. He also allotted a part of the same to one Sri Pran Vir Rastogi and directed that a certain amount be recovered from one of the petitioners. Shortly thereafter, on 26-10-1976, the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property/Tehsildar issued yet another notice to the petitioners wherein he mentioned that he had, vide his order dated 23.9.1976, declared the properties in question as enemy properties. Shortly thereafter, on 26-10-1976, the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property/Tehsildar issued yet another notice to the petitioners wherein he mentioned that he had, vide his order dated 23.9.1976, declared the properties in question as enemy properties. He referred to some order passed by the District Magistrate on 8-10-1976 and directed the petitioners to give up their illegal possession within 24 hours failing which steps would be taken to forcibly dispossess them from the said properties. Aggrieved the petitioners have now approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Respondents have appeared to contest the prayer made in this petition. According to them the properties in question were infact enemy properties and they had been rightly declared by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property to be so. They justified the notices issued to the petitioners requiring them to remove their unauthorised possession from the said properties. According to them the possession over that part of the property which was allotted by the Custodian to Pran Vir Singh had already been taken and Pran Vir Singh is entitled to retain that possession. 3. It was the Defence of India Rule 1962 which made provisions for the vesting of enemy properties in the Custodian of enemy properties. The Government of India, by means of Notification dated 10-9-1965, in exercise of power conferred by sub rule (1) of rule 133-V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 directed that all immovable property in India, belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of all Pakistan nationals, shall vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India with immediate effect. Section 5 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 provides that notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1971 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971, all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said Rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of the Enemy property (Amendment) Act, 1977 shall, as from such commencement, vest in the custodian. The Act further empowers the Custodian to deal with the property vested in him in the manner laid down by sections. The Act further empowers the Custodian to deal with the property vested in him in the manner laid down by sections. We however do not find any provision in the Act or the Defence of India Rules which empower the custodian of enemy properties to in a case where some one disputes that a particular property to be enemy property, adjudicate or to give a determinative finding on the point in controversy. Likewise we do not find any provision in the Act or the rules which empowers the Custodian to take forcible possession of any property which he claims to have vested in him as enemy property. In our opinion whenever such controversy is raised it has to be resolved by raising the issue in appropriate civil proceedings. 4. In the instant case all that has happened is that the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property has, after holding certain enquiries, come to the conclusion that the properties in question are enemy properties which vest in him. The petitioners who claim to be the tenant in the said properties do not accept this position and assert that the properties do not vest in the Custodian. According to them the said properties belong to a Waqf. In these circumstances, if the Custodian wants to enforce his rights and to obtain possession of the properties, he will have to initiate appropriate proceedings. He cannot take forcible possession of the properties from the petitioners. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for this Court to, in exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, decide the question as to whether the concerned properties are enemy properties. 5. In case, as asserted by the respondents, possession over that portion of the property which was allotted to Pran Vir Rastogi has already been given to the allottee and the petitioners claim that the said possession is unauthorised, it will be for them to initiate appropriate proceedings for obtaining possession thereof from Pran Vir Rastogi. 6. In the result the petitions succeed in part. Respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the properties of which they claim to be tenants, forcibly. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the Custodian to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for establishing his claim to the properties and to claim possession thereof. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.