JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing order dated 18/03/98 (Ann.1) whereby Rajasthan Wqaf Tribunal, Jaipur allowed application (No. 2/93) filed by respondent No. 1 U/s 83 of The WaKf Act, 1995 ("the Act") directing the petitioner to remove tin shed at his own costs and further directing that he will not raise any construction permanently or temporarily and sublet or part with possession of property in dispute without prior permission of plaintiff (respondent No. 1). 2. Respondent No. 1 filed application U/s 83 of the Act with the grievance that wakf property of Hajrat Sheikh Allauddin has been notified as Wakf property duly controlled by its Management Intejamiya Committee which has let out a piece of land measuring 19x19 ft to petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.150/- w.e.f. 01/06/90 but was sublet at increased rent of Rs.500/-in the year 1995 and from 01/02/96 to Rs.600/- without any prior permission, petitioner raised tin shed. It was also pleaded that independent proceedings for eviction of petitioner (tenant) from rented property have been initiated by filing application before Estate Officer, which was pending when application U/s 83 of the Act came up for final disposal. 3. It has been informed to this Court by Counsel for petitioner that application for eviction filed by respondent plaintiff has been allowed by Estate Officer (Wakf), and he has been ordered to be evicted from rented property, against which petitioner preferred appeal and that is pending before appellate authority. 4. Petitioner after service of application U/s 83 of the Act, filed written statement and raised dispute, including jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining application U/s 83. It has also been submitted that the Tribunal has failed to afford opportunity as provided U/s 83(5) of the Act to the parties to lead evidence in support of respective claim as per the procedure provided under Civil Procedure Code. 5. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the very finding recorded by Tribunal in holding the rented property as wakf property while entertaining application U/s 83, is not legally sustainable and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. 5. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the very finding recorded by Tribunal in holding the rented property as wakf property while entertaining application U/s 83, is not legally sustainable and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Counsel for respondent No. 1, while supporting the order impugned submits that the Tribunal has to adopt the procedure under Code of Civil Procedure, whenever it is required as provided U/s 83(5) of the Act; however, in instant case, property let out to petitioner was duly notified as wakf property and when the notification was not disputed by petitioner, there was no requirement to afford any further opportunity to lead evidence in support of claims in proceedings U/s 83 of the Act. Counsel further submits that relationship of respondent No. 1 & petitioner as landlord & tenant has not been disputed and it was also not the case of petitioner before the Tribunal that tin shed over the let out property was raised with prior permission of landlord; as such finding recorded by Tribunal under order impugned does not call for interference. 7. I have considered contentions of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. This Court earlier directed Counsel for petitioner to inform about the proceedings with regard to eviction pending before Estate Officer (Wakf). As informed by Counsel for petitioner, application filed by respondent No. 1 seeking eviction from the property in dispute has been allowed by Estate Officer (Wakf) and order of eviction is under challenge in appeal as provided under law. 8. As regards objection raised with regard to jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal in respect of property in question, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of material on record, observed in para 6 that the property in dispute was duly notified as wakf property, against which any dispute can be raised by filing application U/s 83 of the Act. However, Counsel for petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 interalia averring in para 01 under Additional plea that in the gazette notification dated 02/12/65 (Ann.3), "Dargah Sheikh Allauddin Pukhta Sanganer was mentioned as wakf property covered under Wakf Act. Only objection raised by petitioner was that the land appurtenant thereto has not been notified. However, Counsel for petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 interalia averring in para 01 under Additional plea that in the gazette notification dated 02/12/65 (Ann.3), "Dargah Sheikh Allauddin Pukhta Sanganer was mentioned as wakf property covered under Wakf Act. Only objection raised by petitioner was that the land appurtenant thereto has not been notified. Suffice it to say that gazette notification takes note of property in dispute and land appurtenant thereto is certainly a part of notified property and taking note thereof, the Tribunal has not committed any error while recording the finding impugned holding the property in dispute as wakf property, for which application U/s 83 of the Act was maintainable. 9. As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioner that procedure as provided under Code of Civil Procedure was not followed by Tribunal while disposing of application U/s 83 of the Act, suffice it to say that if there is any disputed question of fact then certainly the Tribunal was under obligation to proceed as per the procedure provided under Code of Civil Procedure but in instant case, petitioner has not disputed that there was no tin shed raised or raised with the prior permission of respondent No. 1 over property in dispute which was let out to petitioner measuring 19x19 ft.; and accordingly the Tribunal has confined to the direction of removal of tin shed and as a precautionary steps directed that the property in dispute should not either be parted with possession or by subletting the property, creating third party rights while there being no disputed questions of fact raised which may require to lead evidence as provided under Code of Civil Procedure, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any manifest error in the facts of instant case (supra), warranting interference. 10. Consequently writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that appellate forum would independently examine the appeal against order of eviction on merits on the basis of material on record pending consideration without being influenced by observations made (supra) and the finding recorded by learned Tribunal in exercise of powers U/s 83 of the Act.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******