JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 2.9.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 508 /86 whereby the trial Court has decided Issue No. 9 against the defendant petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondent "Madarsah Rehmania Talimul Kuran", Bikaner situated at Mohalla Nana Kua, Bikaner which is an educational institution and is registered under the provisions of Wakfs Act, being the landlord of the suit premises, which is a shop, brought suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner in the trial Court. Simultaneously, since the plaintiff had also let-out a godown belonging to the same institution to the defendant-petitioner for which another similar suit was filed. The defendant-petitioner resisted both the suits on various grounds and, lastly, after completion of the trial, the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff and, consequently, being aggrieved there against, the defendant-petitioner preferred appeals in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner, who, in turn, made over the same to the Addl. District Judge, Bikaner. While the appeals were pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Bikaner, the defendant-petitioner moved an amendment application thereby requesting for amendment in the plaint on the ground that since the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act, 1950') are applicable and the suits could not be maintainable under the simplicities provisions of the transfer of Property Act and, the appellate Court, on the basis of amendment application so, moved, set aside the judgments of the trial Court and remitted both the cases to the trial Court with a direction that an additional issue be framed as sought for by the defendant-petitioner and, thereafter, a fresh decision be given on the same. The trial Court framed additional Issue No. 9 which when translated into English runs as under : "Whether the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction.) Act, 1950 are applicable to the suit property or not and in case they are, what is its effect on the suit?" both the parties, holding that this question was purely a question of law and there being no necessity for recording evidence, vide his impugned order dated 2.9.1994, relying on the Gazette Notification dated 23.9.1976 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers vesting under sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950 held that the provisions of the Act, 1950 were inapplicable and the suit premises did not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Act, 1950 and hence the suit was maintainable under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, being aggrieved there against, this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. 4. Before disposing of the contentions as are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also borne out of the petition itself, the relevant provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950 and the Gazette Notification dated 23.9.1976 issued pursuant thereto may be quoted as under : "2. Extent, Commencement and application:- (1) ......................... (2) ......................... (3) The State Government if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest may, by notification, in the official Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any premises owned by any educational religious or charitable institution the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for the purpose of the institution." Gazette Notification dated 23.9.1976 HOME (Gr.ll) DEPARTMENT.Notification.-(No F. 20(14) Rev. 1/75 dated 20.8.1976) S.O.244.-In Exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1950) (Rajasthan Act, 17 of 1950), the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in public interest, exempts all the premises owned by Wakfs registered under the Wakf Act from the operation of all the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950)." 5. Besides, it is also worthwhile to mention that these special provisions regarding exemption of all wakfs from the operation of Rent Act as prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950, while vires of these special provisions was challenged by way of a Civil Revision Petition, Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Jain, J. (as His Lordships then was), in the decision of Fakir Mohmed v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 (1) RCJ 357 held that these provisions were intra vires to the provisions of the Constitution and their constitutional validity was upheld. 6. The petitioner could not dispute that the suit property has been declared to be wakf property and Ex. 1 - Certificate in proof thereof has been filed. Therefore, there is also no dispute that the suit property is a wakf property.Now, reverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is contended that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed similar suits in the Civil Court at Bikaner under the provisions of the Act, 1950 whereas, in the present case, the plaintiff-non-petitioner has sought exemption from the provisions of the Act, 1950 and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to use two different forums for the same purpose. 7. However, suffice it to observe that, as quoted above, the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950 and Notification dated 23.9.1976 issued in exercise of the powers so vesting in the State of Rajasthan, this objection holds no ground since the case is squarely covered by the aforesaid provision which exempts the Wakfs from the provisions of the Act, 1950 and the present objection cannot be sustained in this petition and, such an objection, on the basis of aforesaid legal provisions can be raised before another appropriate forum regarding maintainability of suits in respect of the Wakfs and, once it is held that the suit property has been registered as Wakfs property, there is no escape from the aforesaid provisions and, consequently, this objection is not sustainable. 8. As regards the objection that the trial Court did not allow the petitioner to adduce any evidence in respect of Issue No. 2. 8. As regards the objection that the trial Court did not allow the petitioner to adduce any evidence in respect of Issue No. 2. Then the issue so framed is a purely legal issue and, the facts, as discussed above, are not disputed and, accordingly, there was absolutely no need for trial Court to have embarked upon recording evidence of the parties and, accordingly, this objection is also without any substance and is rejected. 9. Lastly, on the basis of provisions of Section 10-A of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964, it has been argued that, when by way of special provisions or entertaining of suits or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person who is in unuthorised occupation of any public premises or for recovery of arrears payable under the Act etc., ordinary civil jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9, CPC is barred and, in view of this fact as well, the trial Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as well. 10. However, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, while relying on the decision rendered in Hasmat Ali v. Anwar Ali, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1149 of 1994 decided on 13.3.1996 in respect of the godown in respect of which similar suit was pending between these parties, has contended that no such objection was ever raised before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court never gave any finding on this objection and this objection has been belatedly and with an ulterior motive raised, at the fag-end of disposal of this petition. 11. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid revisional order, while brushing aside similar objection, observed that since the tenant-petitioner did not allege that he was in unauthorised occupation of the wakfs property and, instead, he has been throughout disputing that he was a tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and, in view of these circumstances, this objection cannot be allowed in the revision petition and, accordingly, in the similar circumstances, at present, since these suits were filed as early as in the year 1985 and this objection was never raised before the trial Court in the first inning or in the second inning nor the same was raised before the first appellate Court and, in these circumstances, this objection cannot be sustained. 12. 12. Resultantly, the learned trial Judge, while deciding Issue No. 9 against the defendant-petitioner, did not commit any illegality or jurisdictional irregularity and, consequently, this revision petition is wholly devoid of any merit and the same deserve its dismissal.On the basis of above discussion, this revision along with the stay petition is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******