Order.- These two revision petitions arise out of an order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bandar, in M.C. No. 20 of 1957 directing the eviction of the petitioners herein from the properties in dispute which are cultivable lands in an inam village and belonging to the institution, viz., Sri Seetharamaswamivari Temple, Bantumilli village, Krishna District. The first respondent herein, armed with a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, declaring that the properties in question belonged to the said institution applied to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bandar, under section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951). The relevant portion of section 87 of the said Act is as follows: “Where a person has been appointed.....as manager under section 56 or in any scheme framed by the Board before the commencement of this Act, and such person is resisted in, or prevented from, obtaining possession of the religious institution or of the records, accounts, and properties thereof, by a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-holder or servant, not being a person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account or on account of some person not being such trustee, office-holder or servant, any Magistrate of the first class in whose jurisdiction such institution or property is situated shall, on application by the person so appointed, and on the production of the order of appointment and, where the application is for possession of property, of a certificate by the Commissioner in the prescribed form setting forth that the property in question belongs to the religious institution, direct delivery to the person appointed as aforesaid of the possession of such religious institution or the records, accounts and properties thereof, as the case may be, * * * * * * Provided also that for the purpose of proceedings under this section, the certificate aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence that the properties to which it relates belong to the religious institution”. The learned First Class Magistrate before whom the application was filed by the first respondent herein allowed the application of the trustees and observed as follows: “.....I cannot agree with him that section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act has to become ineffective and that the trustee has to take union under the provisions of the Act. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Legislature in passing the Inams Act, Abolition Act and Tenancy Act to override section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act which is a specific provision made for giving delivery of temple properties. Proviso II to section 87 says that the issue of a certificate is conclusive evidence that the properties to which it relates belong to the religious endowments”. The simple point that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the Magistrate is justified in ordering eviction of the petitioners in these revision petitions without examining whether the petitioners were persons claiming in good faith to be in possession on their own account. A Magistrate would be justified in ordering the eviction of the petitioner under section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act only if he is satisfied that the petitioners were not persons claiming in good faith to be in possession of the properties on their own account. It is not disputed that there was has not been any enquiry in this regard by the Magistrate before he issued the order of eviction. It should be remembered that although the second proviso to this section makes it conclusive proof that the property belonged to the institution, this fact is not seriously disputed in these petitions. Before decision could be taken with reference to the body of the section, the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself as to the nature of the claim of the petitioners. If it was the intention of the Legislature that the moment there is a certificate issued by the Commissioner, eviction should follow as a matter of course, the provisions in the body of the section would be completely unnecessary. The very fact that they are there, indicates that the certificate of the Commissioner is not sufficient to support an order of eviction. The very fact that they are there, indicates that the certificate of the Commissioner is not sufficient to support an order of eviction. The Magistrate must be satisfied either that the person resisting the possession of the lawful trustee, i.e., 1st respondent in these petitions, derived his title from either a dismissed trustee, office holder or other person not entitled in good faith or that he had no shadow of claim which could be regarded as bona fide. In these cases, the petitioners contend that by reason of the provisions of Act XXXVII of 1956, viz., the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1956 and also by virtue of the provisions of section 10 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, XVIII of 1956, they are entitled in their own right to continue in possession, under the former Act as an occupancy tenant, occupancy rights having been conferred by section 8 thereof and under the latter Act by virtue of the statutory minimum period to the extent of which possession may be protected. Under either of the Acts, the claim of the petitioners is that they are entitled to remain in possession in their own right. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contends that whatever may be the legal operation of these Acts, it is admitted that the petitioners derived their right to remain in possession by reason of a lease granted to them by the 2nd respondent who is the archaka of the temple and who, prior to the 1st respondent’s appointment as trustee of the temple, was functioning as a trustee de facto of the temple. In this connection, it should be remembered that it is not open to the 1st respondent to question or controvert the action taken and whatever has been done by his predecessor-in-interest, as he has himself derived his right to meddle in the affairs of the institution by virtue of his appointment. Apart from this technical point, the fact that the petitioners herein have claimed occupancy rights in the suit lands by virtue of the two enactments referred to above shows that they fell within the category of persons claiming in good faith to be in possession on their own account. Apart from this technical point, the fact that the petitioners herein have claimed occupancy rights in the suit lands by virtue of the two enactments referred to above shows that they fell within the category of persons claiming in good faith to be in possession on their own account. If this could be found as a fact, the jurisdiction to order eviction under section 87, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act would not exist and the Magistrate’s order would not be legal or within his powers. That apart, it is a recognised principle of the interpretation of statutes that in regard to the question of giving effect to the prior and subsequent Acts of the Legislature, this has to be done on the basis of the principle that the subsequent enactment must in law be deemed to have impliedly repealed the earlier one and that both the Acts must, as far as possible, be read together and reconciled to each other so as to avoid any apparent conflict or repugnancy. In the result, the order of the learned First Class Magistrate is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Court of the learned First Class Magistrate or of his successor-in-office, who is directed to enquire into the question whether on the allegations and the proof that may be adduced by the petitioners herein they can be regarded as persons claiming in good faith to be in possession on their own account, by receiving evidence in support thereof adduced on either side. If he is so satisfied, he must refuse to take action under section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. A.S.R. ------ Matter remanded.