Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Heard Sri B.B.Paul and Sri A.P.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is contended that Revisional Court, on one hand held that even if the property is a Wakf property and it is exempted from application of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") under Section 2(1)(bbb) of Act, 1972 that would not make any difference since suit for ejectment itself would lie in Small Cause Court and the revision before the same Revisional Court. It is submitted that once it is held that Act, 1972 was not applicable in view of Section 2(1)(bbb) of Act, 1972, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff so as to be presented in appropriate Court under relevant provisions and on this aspect Revisional Court has committed manifest error. 3. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. In 1990, when the suit itself was filed, there was no exemption in respect to application of Act, 1972 to the property belong to a Wakf. Section 2(1)(bbb) came to be inserted by U.P. Act No.5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26th September, 1994 and provision is not retrospective. It would not affect pending proceedings. This is what has already been held by Apex Court as well as by a larger Bench i.e. Division Bench of this Court. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Company and Another, 2001(8) SCC 397 the Court has held that insertion of certain provision in the principal Act, taking away application of the Act, would not affect pending proceedings, if on the date when proceedings were initiated, the same were well within its jurisdiction. 4. The said principle has been followed by a Division Bench in Champa Devi (Smt.) & Anr. Vs. Rent Control & Eviction Officer (Ist), Allahabad & Anr. 2002(1) ARC 192 and in Para 4 of the judgment, the reference made to the larger Bench was answered as under. "Accordingly, the answer to the question referred would be that clause (g) to Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, inserted in the Act by Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, will not affect the proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995." 5. The Revisional Court in fact has made certain observations in this regard which is by way of abundant caution otherwise it has clearly held that property though is a Wakf property but is covered by Act, 1972. Since there is default in payment of rent, Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. It appears that in respect to allegation regarding default in payment of rent and liability of tenant for eviction on the ground under Section 20(2)(a) of Act, 1972, no issue was raised before Revisional Court and this aspect was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue raised before this Court has already been settled and it has been found that Wakf property was not exempted from application of Act, 1972 in 1990, therefore, suit in question was rightly filed under Section 20(2)(a) of Act, 1972. 6. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments and orders. 7. Dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________