Judgment :- This order shall govern the following five Civil Revision Petitions viz. CRP.Nos.4219, 4220,4221,4222 and 4223 of 2001. 2. The petitioner-wakf, filed five Wakf OPs. Before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in O.P.No.4, 6,2,7 and 3 alleging that the properties mentioned in the applications belonged to the wakf. The respondents found therein are the tenants in respect of the premises. Respondent in O.P.No.2 of 1999 agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.16.50/- and he defaulted to pay the rent from 8. 1994 to 33. 1996 and thus he is liable to pay Rs.264/-, the respondent in O.P.No.3 of 1999 agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.40/-, and defaulted to pay the rent from 12. 1994 to 33. 1996, thus totalling rental arrears of Rs.2,500/-. The respondent in O.P.No.4 of 1999 agreed to pay Rs.90/- p.m. and he defaulted in payment of rent from 3. 1994 to 33. 1996, which is totaling to Rs.3240/-. The respondent in O.P.No.6 of 1999 agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.40/-and defaulted to pay the rents from 12. 1994 to 33. 1996, thus totalling the arrears of rent of Rs.640/- and the respondent in O.P.7 of 1997, agreed to pay the rent of Rs.16.50/- and defaulted to pay the rent from 12. 1994 to 33. 1996 thus totalling the arrears of rent of Rs.264/- . Since there was arrears of rent, the petitioner was constrained to issue notices to the respondents determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act and all the notices were marked as Ex.A1 (series) and acknowledgment cards for the receipt of the notice by the respondents were marked as Ex.A2 (series) respectively in all the cases. 3. The matter was taken up for enquiry by the learned Principal Subodinate Judge,Nagapattinam and on enquiry all the O.Ps., were dismissed. Aggrieved petitioner-wakf in the O.Ps., brought forth the Civil Revision petitions before this Court. 4. Advancing his argument on behalf of the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner-wakf would submit that all the O.Ps. Were filed before the Court below, after determining tenancy of the respondent/tenants by issuing proper notices as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus the lease was determined properly and petitions were filed before the lower court. But, the lower Court has dismissed all the O.Ps. Were filed before the Court below, after determining tenancy of the respondent/tenants by issuing proper notices as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus the lease was determined properly and petitions were filed before the lower court. But, the lower Court has dismissed all the O.Ps. Mistakenly pointing out that wilful default was not proved by the petitioner/landlord. Learned counsel would further add that in a case like this where the petitioner has proved that he is the owner of the properties in question and there was a lease between the parties and lease has been determined as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Courts below should have ordered eviction, but erroneously dismissed the applications. 5. The Court heard the respondent on the above contentions. 6. After a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that all these CRPs. have got to be allowed. It is not in controversy that the properties mentioned in all these O.Ps, before the lower court viz. O.P.Nos.2, 3,4,6 and 7 of 1999 belonged to the petitioner-wakf and the rental rates which are found therein have been paid by the tenants. It is true that in the instant case, there was evidence to show that the respondents were making payments of rent in lumpsum through the Clerk of the Wakf. In the instant case, it is needless to say that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not attracted, since the properties belonged to Wakf. Under the circumstances, the petitioner-Wakf has issued notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act determining the tenancy. It is pertinent to point out that the validity of the notice issued by the petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was never questioned by the respondents/tenants. Apart from this, once the tenancy was determined as contemplated under Section 106 of the T.P.Act by issuing notices, no question of default much less wilful default would arise for consideration. But the lower Court has mistakenly of the impression that the wilful default was the ground for eviction and the same was not proved by the petitioner landlord and hence dismissed all the O.Ps. This view is erroneous and all the petitions have got to be allowed. 7. But the lower Court has mistakenly of the impression that the wilful default was the ground for eviction and the same was not proved by the petitioner landlord and hence dismissed all the O.Ps. This view is erroneous and all the petitions have got to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the order of the lower court is set aside and all the Civil Revision petitions are allowed. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents in the respective O.Ps. Are carrying on their business. Taking into consideration the said fact, one-year time is granted to each of the respondent to vacate and hand over possession to the petitioner-wakf. No costs.