ORDER This revision is against an award passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The plaintiffs filed OS No.2 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the plaintiffs include A.P. State Wakf Board and also the President of Jamia Masjid, Marredpally, Secunderabad. The suit was laid on the ground that a Masjid is situated at West Mareddpally, Secunderabad, which has attached property such as old and new Muslim graveyard at 146 (Municipal No10-1-3). The mosque, the graveyard, land pertaining to mosque, Dargahs, Ashoorkhana etc., were registered as Wakf property. The management of the mosque is under the control of the Committee appointed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. Mohd. Moizuddin was appointed as President of the 1st plaintiff through proceedings dated 7.1.1994. 3. Defendant No.1 obtained an area of 2587 square yards from the plaintiff on lease under a lease deed dated 17.4.1991. The 1st defendant obtained the property agreeing to pay rent of Rs.5,000/- per month payable every month on or before 5th. The 1st defendant obtained the property for the purpose of running an educational institution under the name and style of 'St. Andrews School'. The 1st defendant constructed rooms with asbestos roof at its expenses. The 1st defendant had agreed to enhance the rent by 3% annually in addition to payment of electricity consumption charges. The 1st defendant had also undertaken to evict the previous tenants in occupation of the property. However, the 1st defendant did not take any responsibility and plaintiffs filed suits against the said persons for eviction. 4. A lease deed was executed between the 1st defendant and plaintiffs on 17.4.1991 and lease was for three years. Since the lease was not registered, therefore, the lease has to be taken as month-to-month, commencing from 1st of month to the end of month. The 1st defendant was paying rent at Rs.5,550/- per month during April 1997. The 1st defendant constructed another building at West Marredpally in 1997 and shifted the school to the said building. The 1st defendant has unauthorisedly sublet the building now to the 2nd defendant. A notice of termination of lease was given on 19.5.1997 and the 1st defendant was called upon to deliver the possession of property by 1.8.1997. The 1st defendant is depositing the amounts of rent into the bank accounts of plaintiffs and plaintiffs are receiving the rent without prejudice to their rights. A notice of termination of lease was given on 19.5.1997 and the 1st defendant was called upon to deliver the possession of property by 1.8.1997. The 1st defendant is depositing the amounts of rent into the bank accounts of plaintiffs and plaintiffs are receiving the rent without prejudice to their rights. Another notice was given on 16.11.1999, which was received by defendants, but they did not reply. 5. The defendants in their written statement, contended that it was not in their knowledge that the property was Wakf property and Mr. Mohd. Moizuddin was appointed as President by the Wakf Board. But it was however stated that the 1st defendant had not taken on lease 2587 square yards from the plaintiff, but it took on leas an area of 6,467.30 square yards. It is also denied that the property had been taken to run an educational institution named 'St. Andrews School'. There was an understanding that the defendants would make their own constructions and they have invested huge amounts. The 1st defendant had approached the I.G. of stamps for getting validated the lease deed dated 17.4.1991. It was also denied that the 1st defendant had constructed the building at West Marredpally and the school had been shifted to the said building. The sub-letting from 1st defendant to 2nd defendant was also denied. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff had not stated as to how the property was Wakf property. The dispute was outside the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal as it related to termination of tenancy and it was within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. 6. Rejoinder was also filed by the plaintiff and the following issues were framed by the trial Court- "1. Whether the tenancy is month to month as alleged by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of possession and mesne profits as claimed in the suit? 3. Whether the AP Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Whether the suit schedule property is the Wakf property if so whether it is registered as required under the Wakf Act? 5. Whether the suit is barred as per the provision of Section 87 of the Wakf Act? 6. Whether the plaintiff has pleaded the cause of action as required under the law and as required under the Wakf Act? 7. 5. Whether the suit is barred as per the provision of Section 87 of the Wakf Act? 6. Whether the plaintiff has pleaded the cause of action as required under the law and as required under the Wakf Act? 7. Whether the person who has signed and verified the pleadings is not empowered to do so and therefore the suit is not maintainable? 8. To what relief?" Issue No.4 viz., Whether the suit, schedule property is the Wakf property, if so, whether it is registered as required under the Wakf Act?, is important and I would like to deal with this issue first. 7. EX.A8 is the Gazette Notification, which shows that the property is Wakf property. since the property is Wakf property, all disputes relating to the Wakf property have to be tried by the Wakf Tribunal, as has been held by this Court in Jai Bharat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2000 (5) ALD 743 = 2000 (5) ALT 389 . Since Ex.A8 is the notification notifying the property to be the Wakf property, there is a presumption that the property is a Wakf property and EX.A8 has not been challenged. Therefore, the plea that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction, cannot be entertained. 8. As per Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') if the property is Wakf property, then there cannot be any lease of Wakf property beyond three years. Section 56 of the Act is reproduced hereunder- "56.Restriction on power to grant lease of Wakf property:-(1) A lease or sub-lease for any period exceeding three years of any immovable property which is Wakf property, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of Wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect. (2) A lease or sub-lease for any period exceeding one year and not exceeding three years of immovable property which is Wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of Wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect unless it is made with the previous sanction of the Board. (3) The Board shall, in granting sanction for lease or sub-lease or renewal thereof under this section review the terms and conditions on which the lease or sub-lease is proposed to be granted or renewed and make its approval subject to the revision of such terms and conditions in such manner as it may direct." 9. This provision was also considered by a judgment of this Court in Sri Shinde Enterprises. Hyderabad v. Arastu Talimi Trust, Hyderabad, 2005 (2) ALD 239 . 10. Following these two judgments, I come to the conclusion that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The property decidedly is a Wakf property notified under the Act and there cannot be any lease beyond three years in terms of Section 56 of the Act. The lease was, ab initio, in terms of Section 56 of the Act. Besides, even if the lease were valid, it had been determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.