JUDGMENT 1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, are as under: Rajasthan Board of Muslif Wakf, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiff Board") had instituted a suit on 20th January, 1969, for eviction of Ved Prakash alias Ved Kumar Sharma (hereinafter to be referred as "the defendant") on the grounds that he had committed default in payment of rent, had damaged the property, had used it for the purposes other than for which it was let out to him, besides on the ground that the plot in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiff Board for setting up Muslim religious teachings school in Mohalla Teliwada, in the town of Bayana. The case set up in the plaint was as under : There used to be a public mosque on the plot in dispute. The said mosque was demolished during the riots of 1947-1948, and considering it to be the evacuee property, the constodian of the evacuee properties (hereinafter to be referred as "the custodian") took it under its own care and let it out to the defendant, at a monthly rent of र 3/-, with effect from 12th May, 1955, but, since it is a wakf property, it was released on 4th November, 1960 and was placed at the disposal of the Wakf Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and an intimation in this respect was sent to the defendant as well. In the year 1962, the plaintiff-Board was set up by the Government of Rajasthan, and all wakf properties, including the plot in dispute, vest in the plaintiff Board. The plot in dispute has been declared to be a wakf property vide the notification dated 31st March, 1966, published in the Rajasthan Gazette, and that since the defendant had been a tenant under the custodian, he became a tenant under the plaintiff-Board. The plot in dispute has been declared to be a wakf property vide the notification dated 31st March, 1966, published in the Rajasthan Gazette, and that since the defendant had been a tenant under the custodian, he became a tenant under the plaintiff-Board. The defendant had committed default in payment of rent, and a sum of र 183/- was due from him for the period ending 4th November, 1960, and thereafter also, he had not paid any rent and that he had misused the property and had caused substantial damage to it, and further that there was a necessity of establishing the Muslim religious teachings school in the town of Bayana, and the plot in dispute was bonafide required by the plaintiff-Board for establishing such a school, and it was suitable for that purpose. The tenancy of the defendant had been terminated by service of a notice, which had been received by the defendant on 19th October, 1968. The plaintiff Board claimed a decree for a sum of र 108/- as the arrears of rent for the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the suit, besides the decree for eviction on the abovesaid grounds. In the alternative, it was prayed that if it was found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-Board and the defendant, a decree for possession be passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff-Board. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and also controverted the grounds of eviction. He admitted that he had taken the plot in dispute on rent, from the custodian, but, contended that the custodian had no right to release the property in dispute, as it vested in the Central Government. He also denied that there was any mosque on the plot in dispute. He admitted that he had taken the plot in dispute on rent, from the custodian, but, contended that the custodian had no right to release the property in dispute, as it vested in the Central Government. He also denied that there was any mosque on the plot in dispute. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, and hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that there used to be a mosque on the plot in dispute, which was demolished during the riots in the year 1947-1948, and that the property in dispute was wakf property and had been released in favour of the Commissioner of Wakf, State of Rajasthan, and thereafter it vested in the plaintiff-Board, and further that the defendant had committed default in the payment of rent, and also that the plot in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiff-Board for setting up a Muslim religious teachings school. Consequently, vide the judgment dated 22nd November, 1979, the learned Additional Munsif, Bayana passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff Board and against the defendant, and also held the plaintiff Board entitled to recover a sum of र 108/- by way of rent for the period of three years prior to the date of institution of the suit and mesne profits at the rate of र 3/- till the possession is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff Board. The appeal filed by the defendant was heard by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur, who, vide the impugned judgment dated 30th April, 1984, dismissed it. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant approached this court by filling this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant died, and on an application having been moved by the present appellants, they were brought on record as his legal representatives vide the order dated 17th May, 1989. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant approached this court by filling this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant died, and on an application having been moved by the present appellants, they were brought on record as his legal representatives vide the order dated 17th May, 1989. 2. Shri P. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the evacuee properties stood vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1954"), and thereafter, the custodian had been left with no rights therein and, as such, the plot in dispute could not have been released by the custodian in favour of the Commissioner of Wakf and could not form part of the Wakf property. 3. The finding recorded by the learned lower courts that there used to be a mosque over the plot in dispute and that the said mosque was demolished during the riots in the year 1947-1948, was not seriously challenged before me, and in my view, rightly, as the said finding is based on the evidence produced by the parties, and discussed by the learned lower courts, and cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable in any way. It cannot be disputed that the mosque and the land underneath it, i.e., the plot in dispute, thus, was the property of the wakf (trust created for public religious and charitable purposes). The said properly, in view of Section 11(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1950"), could remain vested in the custodian only till the time that the Central Government appointed trustees thereof. No notifications under Section 12 of the Act of 1954, has been produced to show that the plot in dispute vested in the Central Government, and in any case, in view of Section 11(1) of the Act of 1950, vesting of the property being temporary, i.e., till the new trustees are appointed by the Central Government, no notification would ordinarily have been issued in respect of the plot in dispute. section 54 of the Act of 1950 empowers the Central Government to pass such orders or give such directions for such action to be taken in relation to any property, which had vested in the custodian under the provisions of the said Act, as the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any provisions contained in the said Act, and Section 55 of the said Act empowers the Central Government, to delegate its power in favour of the State Government, exercisable by it under the Act.The letter dated 4th November, 1960 (Ex. 5)shows that in pursuance of decision taken by the Government of India, the powers of the Central Government under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1950, had been delegated in favour of the Government of the State of Rajasthan, and Wakf Commissioner, Jaipur, had been asked to arrange to take over the properties from the Assistant Custodians of Alwar and Jaipur Zones, and Exhibit-6, attached to Exhibit-5, shows that the property, which was required to be taken over by the Wakf Commissioner, was the plot in dispute, which has been described as the mosque (plot). The plot in dispute being the wakf property, therefore, vested in the plaintiff-Board, after it was taken over by the Government of the State of Rajasthan, as the plaintiff-Board became the trustee/mutawalli of the plot in dispute and became entitled to manage it. No defect could, therefore, be found in the release of the property in favour of the Wakf Commissioner/ plaintiff Board. Even otherwise, admittedly, vide the letter dated 27th June, 1964 (Ex.7), the Wakf Commissioner had informed the defendant about the plot in dispute having been released in his favour, and admittedly, after the receipt of this information, the defendant did not challenge the release of the plot in dispute in favour of the Wakf Commissioner plaintiff Board, at any time, by impleading the Central Government or the State Government, in proper proceedings and, as such, the power to release the plot in dispute, cannot be challenged in these proceedings, in which, neither the Central Government nor the State Government has been made a party. 4. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. 4. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. It has next been contended that the learned lower courts have wrongly held that the plot in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiff Board, and that the defendant has committed default in the payment of rent. 6. From the record, I find that these findings are of facts and are based on the evidence produced by the. parties, and are discussed by the learned lower courts, and cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable in any way and, as such, are binding on this Court, and cannot be disturbed in this second appeal. 7. No other point has been raised before me. Finding the appeal to be without any merit, I dismiss it. 8. The appellants are, however, granted time till 31st March, 1994, to vacate the plot in dispute and had over its vacant and peaceful possession, to the plaintiff Board, subject to their depositing in the learned trial court, the entire arrears of rent at the agreed rate of र 3/- per month, within a period of one month from today, and also subject to their furnishing an undertaking in the learned trial court that they would vacate the plot in dispute and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff Board, on or before 1st April, 1994. If any of the above said conditions is not fulfilled, the stay shall stand vacated immediately, and plaintiff Board would be free to execute the decree.Appeal dismissed. *******