Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is focussed to get set aside the fair and executable order dated 13.02.2007 passed in W.O.P.No.6 of 2001 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge - Wakf Tribunal, Thanjavur. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Accordingly, the first respondent is referred to as Pallivasal; the second respondent as tenant and the revision petitioners as sub-tenants. 3. The quintessence and re'sume' of the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, would run thus: (i) The Pallivasal filed W.O.P.No.6 of 2001 for eviction of the tenant and the two sub-tenants describing them as the unauthorised occupants. The prayer in the W.O.P., reads as under: "(a) pass a decree in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondents to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property to the petitioner within the time granted by this Honourable Tribunal. (b) failing which directing delivery through process of the Honourable Tribunal." (ii) The second respondent herein/tenant remained exparte. Whereas the revision petitioners herein/sub-tenants resisted the petition on the ground that they are not unauthorised occupants as they also paid rents to the Pallivasal which were received by Pallivasal without any demur. Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered eviction. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this statutory revision has been focussed under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would pyramid his arguments placing reliance on the grounds of revision, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all in this matter and only the civil Court has got jurisdiction in view of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported in(2010) 6 MLJ 527 (SC). As such, he would seek to set aside the order of the Tribunal on jurisdiction point, warranting interference in revision. 6. As such, he would seek to set aside the order of the Tribunal on jurisdiction point, warranting interference in revision. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Pallivasal would submit that earlier a suit was filed for recovery of rent before the civil Court and at that time, the civil Court simply transferred the suit to the Tribunal as though the Tribunal only has got jurisdiction relating to the Wakf matters and the civil Court had got no jurisdiction at all. Accordingly, he would submit that the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceedings by virtue of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to evict the tenants and sub-tenants, even though described as trespassers? The Point: 8. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the followings decisions: (i) Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (Dead) by Lrs., reported in 2002 (1)CTC 561. (ii) Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam Majid and Durga v. Haji Syed Irfan Hussain Sahib reported in 2010(2) MWN (Civil) 655. 9. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedents would amply make the point clear that the Wakf Act, 1995, could be invoked only relating to certain matters as found exemplified under Section 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Under Section 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995, there is nothing to indicate that the Wakf Tribunal has been conferred with the power to evict a tenant or sub-tenant described as trespassers. 10. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Pallivasal placing reliance on the decision of this Court in M.Munusamy v. Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam and 2 others reported in 1997-3-L.W. 365, would submit that the very appeal filed by the revision petitioners projecting themselves as sub-tenants is untenable. 11. I would like to point out that the issue involved in the cited decision is entirely different. Here, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is involved and the person who faced the eviction order at the hands of the Tribunal having no jurisdiction, cannot be prevented from agitating the jurisdiction point by filing statutory revision. 11. I would like to point out that the issue involved in the cited decision is entirely different. Here, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is involved and the person who faced the eviction order at the hands of the Tribunal having no jurisdiction, cannot be prevented from agitating the jurisdiction point by filing statutory revision. Hence, I would like to indicate and highlight that even though the original tenant Manivannan has not preferred any appeal, the revision petitioners who projected themselves as sub-tenants are having the right to contend in this Civil Revision Petition that the Wakf Tribunal without jurisdiction passed the eviction order and in such a case, questioning the right of the revision petitioners to file revision does not arise at all in this case. 12. The Honourable Apex Court with an intention to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, in the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, held that the suit as against the tenant could only be filed in the civil Court in the normal course. It is also quite clear that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is not applicable in matters of this nature as exemption has been granted from the purview of the Act in favour of the Pallivasal and other Wakfs in respect of their properties. 13. Not to put too fine a point on it, a fortiori, the Pallivasal should have instituted a regular civil suit after issuing termination notice concerned under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. But, they approached the Tribunal straightaway and the Tribunal also entertained the suit which cannot be countenanced and held as correct. The point is answered accordingly. 14. On balance, the order dated 13.02.2007 passed in W.O.P.No.6 of 2001 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge - Wakf Tribunal, Thanjavur, is set aside. I would like to make it clear that it is open for the Pallivasal to issue proper statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and thereafter, institute the proceedings before the regular civil Court having jurisdiction. Whereupon the civil Court without once again entertaining any issue concerning the jurisdiction point, shall process the matter as per law. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.