BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an order passed on I. A IV dated 228-1984 by the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore city, in H. R. C. No. 2784/81 on an application filed by the respondent under Or. 1 rule 10 sub-rule (2) read with Section 151 C. P. C. for the purpose of the leave of the Court to implead the Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore, represented by its secretary as well as the Managing Committee of Jamia Masjid, Bangalore, represented by its Secretary as the proposed respondents. The said interlocutory application was filed when an eviction proceeding against the applicant was pending before the Court. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are, briefly, as follows : the petitioner in H. R. C. 2784/81 sued the respondent for eviction under Section 21 (1) (h)of the Karnataka Rent Control act in respect of the petition schedule premises. After the respondent filed the objection, the case was posted for evidence and subsequently evidence on behalf of both the parties was adduced before the Court. Thereafter this application in i. A-VI was filed by the respondent. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, the respondent strongly relied upon the provisions of Section 57 of the wakf Act, 1954, contending that the said provision contemplates that in every suit or proceeding relating to a title to the wakf property or the right of a Mutawalli, the court shall issue a notice to the Board and that, in the instant case, the petition schedule property is a wakf property which is managed by the 1st proposed respondent through the 2nd proposed respondent and, as such, both the proposed respondents are proper and necessary parties to the above proceedings. ( 3 ) IT may also be mentioned that, in the objection statement filed against the main petition for eviction in H R C. 2784/81, in para-4, the respondent has pleaded as follows :"the suit premises is a part of the wakf property, which was once several years back used as Muslim Burial ground, and the records disclose that was once a burial ground, for the dead muslims of the locality. The present status of the entire area in question including the suit premises is Wakf with a shrine in it, and the shrine and other tombs round about it have been a place of worship, honour, respect reverence and held sacred for more than hundred years. The history of the place with its property, environments conduct of the public and the parties towards the area in question and the object of the endowment clearly show that it is a 'wakf' property and is permanently used as religious institution and the property is maintained for rendering service at the shrine. It is a dedicated property, and as such is complete trust under the law and inalienable and any subsequent dealing and transaction relating to the property in question will not derogate, alter or change its wakf character. The plaintiff/petitioner did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property. "in short, the respondent denied the title of the petitioner to the petition schedule premises. ( 4 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in the eviction petition seeking relief is as follows :"wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of eviction against the respondent and allow this petition with costs. " ( 5 ) I. A-VI which was filed by the respondent was allowed by the lower court which ordered that the two parties proposed by the respondent should be brought on record after due notice as respondents-2 and 3 by suitably amending the cause title to the eviction petition. ( 6 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by this order. ( 7 ) THE short point for consideration is whether Section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act is attracted to the facts of the case and whether the lower court was justified in allowing I. A VI for impleading the proposed respondents. ( 8 ) THE search for the answer is located in the wordings of Section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 itself. The said section reads:"notice of suits, etc. , by courts:- (1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a title to wakf property or the right of a mutawalli, the court shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. " ( 9 ) IT may be stated that the Wakf act. The said section reads:"notice of suits, etc. , by courts:- (1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a title to wakf property or the right of a mutawalli, the court shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. " ( 9 ) IT may be stated that the Wakf act. 1954 was brought into force by parliament with the object of providing for the better administration and supervision of wakfs. Under Section 57 (1) of the said Act, it is mandatory for the court to issue a notice to the Board which means a "board of Wakfs" established under sub-section (1) or as the case may be under sub-section (1 A) of Section 9 at the cost of the party instituting a suit or proceeding relating to a title to wakf property or relating to the right of a mutawalli. A careful examination of the wordings, reveal the meaning that a notice shall be issued whenever a suit or proceeding is brought before the Court pertaining to a title to the wakf property or pertaining to the right of a mutawalli. It does not contemplate any other circumstance in which the court is duty-bound to issue a notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, in H. R. C. No. 2784/81, what has been brought before the Court is neither a suit nor proceeding relating to a title to the wakf property nor in relation to the right of a mutawalli. On the contrary, the proceeding brought before the lower court is exclusively in the nature of an eviction proceeding based on the provisions of section 21 (1) (h) of the Rent Control Act. The relief sought is purely in the nature of eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises consisting of a room with Mangalore tiled roofing, measuring 8' x 12' which is situated in hussain Sab compound, 11th-A Cross. Swimmingpool Extension, Ranganathapur, bangalore-3 (residential premises) which is in the occupation of the respondent. I A-VI was filed by the respondent to implead the proposed respondents viz. , the Karnataka Board of Wakfs on the one hand and the Managing Committee of jamia Masjid on the other. Swimmingpool Extension, Ranganathapur, bangalore-3 (residential premises) which is in the occupation of the respondent. I A-VI was filed by the respondent to implead the proposed respondents viz. , the Karnataka Board of Wakfs on the one hand and the Managing Committee of jamia Masjid on the other. ( 11 ) THE application filed under i. A-VI has to be considered along with the provisions of Sec. 57 (1) of the Wakf act, 1954. The fact is that the respondent has invoked the provisions of Sec. 57 (1) of the Wakf Act to move the lower court to issue notice to the Board at the cost of the petitioner in H. R. C. No 2784/81. ( 12 ) IT is impossible to hold that such an application for impleading the proposed respondents is permissible in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner for the purpose of evicting the respondent who is stated to be the tenant of the petitioner. It is not at all warranted by section 57 (1) of the Wakf Act that even in an eviction proceeding such a notice should be issued to the Board and least of all to the proposed respondents. The concession given by the lower court to the respondent is not in accordance with law and it is a result of a patent misreading of the law. ( 13 ) IF the title to wakf property or the right of a mutawalli were the issues that were involved, I do not think that the Wakf Board would have stept-over its rights and allowed the petitioner and the, respondent in the eviction proceeding to battle out their respective case in the capacity of alleged landlord and alleged tenant In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no legal compulsion to issue any notice to the wakf Board and the proposed respondents and least of all any justification to bring the proposed respondents on record. I wish to make it clear that all the other questions raised in the pleadings in the main petition for eviction and the issues under consideration by the trial-court are left open. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .