JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral): - Haryana Wakf Board, successor of defendants Punjab Wakf Board, has filed the instant second appeal having failed in both the courts below. 2. Suit was filed by plaintiff Shri Krishan (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) against Punjab Wakf Board through its Chief Executive Officer and Rent Controller as defendants alleging that the plaintiff is lessee in the suit property, but defendants threatened to dispossess him therefrom forcibly. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the tenancy rights of the plaintiff over the suit property and from interfering in his possession thereon. 3. The defendants alleged that lease in favour of the plaintiff has been cancelled on 16.07.1999 as he was not paying lease money due since 1996-97. The lease was from year to year and was automatically rejected at the end of the year. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had vacated the suit property on 16.07.1999 and it was thereafter transferred to one Manish Mittal as lessee. It was pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009, decreed the plaintiff’s suit thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property being lessee except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 02.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved, instant second appeal has been preferred by Haryana Wakf Board as successor of defendants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that plaintiff (since deceased) was in possession of the suit land. Even the defendants admitted that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The defendants however pleaded that the plaintiff vacated the possession of the suit land on 16.07.1999. However, defendants miserably failed to prove the said plea. Even Manish Mittal, to whom possession of the suit land was allegedly given by defendants after 16.07.1999, has not been examined. 7. Even the defendants admitted that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The defendants however pleaded that the plaintiff vacated the possession of the suit land on 16.07.1999. However, defendants miserably failed to prove the said plea. Even Manish Mittal, to whom possession of the suit land was allegedly given by defendants after 16.07.1999, has not been examined. 7. On the other hand, in the revenue record, plaintiff continued to be recorded to be in possession of the suit land since the year 1967 till the year 2008 i.e. till long after the filing of the suit. Thus, concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is not assailable and has to be confirmed. 8. Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short – the Act). Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another reported as [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 4459] : 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 303. 9. I have carefully considered the contention, but the same is completely unacceptable. 10. In the instant case, the plaintiff did not challenge the Wakf nature of the suit property. The plaintiff rather admitted that Wakf Board is owner of the suit property. Consequently, in this case, question relating to Wakf nature of the property did not arise for adjudication. Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the said question, as held in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra). However, in other matters, only Civil Court has jurisdiction and Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The instant case relates to relief of permanent injunction only. For granting the said relief, only Civil Court has jurisdiction. In this view, I am supported by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported as [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3697] : 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 266. Judgment in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra) is not applicable to the instant case because in that case, Wakf nature of the suit property was in dispute, whereas in the instant case, admittedly according to both the parties, the suit property is Wakf property. Judgment in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra) is not applicable to the instant case because in that case, Wakf nature of the suit property was in dispute, whereas in the instant case, admittedly according to both the parties, the suit property is Wakf property. Consequently, jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit for injunction is not barred. 11. The instant appeal is thus found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. --------------