JUDGMENT :- 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority in a rent control proceedings. 2. The respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1312 of 1992 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default. The contention of the respondent is that from 1.4.1990 to 30.4.1992, the petitioner herein did not pay the rent in spite of repeated demands made by them. The said application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that he was not residing in the petition mentioned property as a tenant but as a mortgagee in pursuant to a mortgage deed dated 29.3.1990 executed by one Irfana Begum. Thus, the petitioner disputed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. 3. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition by holding that the landlord has not proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No. 600 of 2000. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the tenant / petitioner herein by holding that the landlord has established the relationship between the parties as the landlord and tenant. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. Though notice was ordered to the respondent and served on them on 22.1.2011, they have not chosen to appear before this court either in person or through counsel and their names have been printed in the cause list. 5. Heard Mr.V. Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. The R.C.O.P. was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner by claiming him as the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned property. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by contending that he is in possession of the petition mentioned property not in the capacity as a tenant but as a mortgagee in pursuant to a mortgage deed executed by one Irfana Begum on 29.3.1990. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by contending that he is in possession of the petition mentioned property not in the capacity as a tenant but as a mortgagee in pursuant to a mortgage deed executed by one Irfana Begum on 29.3.1990. Though the said contention was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, a perusal of the said order would show that none of the material particulars relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case were taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller. 7. On the other hand a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, who has gone into the merits of the matter in detail, would show that the petitioner has not established his claim of his possession as a mortgagee. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the Appellate Authority that by his own conduct by filing a suit in O.S.No. 8934 of 1994 against the respondent herein, the petitioner has admitted that he is a statutory tenant and as such he is entitled to be in possession of the petition mentioned property until he is evicted by due process of law. It is also noted by the Appellate Authority that the said suit was filed by the petitioner and other tenants. The Appellate Authority pointed out that the affidavit filed in the said suit and marked as Ex.P.14 would clearly go to show that the petitioner has specifically admitted therein his capacity as a tenant by paying the rent to the said Irfana Begum. Had there been really any mortgage in his favour certainly he would have disclosed those particulars in the said suit itself and on the other hand, his categorical assertion was that his possession in the petition mentioned property was in the capacity of a tenant, who cannot be evicted except by due process of law. 8. Moreover , the Appellate Authority also pointed out that the petition mentioned property originally belonged to Dr.Mohamed Ismail, who during his life time created the respondent Wakf under Ex.P3. Therefore, when the property was already vested with the respondent wakf then the same cannot be alienated either by way of sale or mortgage or gift etc. in the absence of sanction from the Wakf Board . 9. Therefore, when the property was already vested with the respondent wakf then the same cannot be alienated either by way of sale or mortgage or gift etc. in the absence of sanction from the Wakf Board . 9. It is also found by the Appellate Authority that the said Irfana Begum was not a proper person to execute the deed of mortgage in favour of the petitioner. It is also found by the Appellate Court that the respondent and other Muthavallis filed O.S.No. 6699 of 1992 seeking for declaration to declare the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board allowing the said Mrs.Irfana Begum as Muthavalli as null and void. The said suit was decreed as found under Ex.P3 and P4. Thus, the Appellate Authority has found that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the said Irfana Begum was the proper person to execute Ex.R2 mortgage deed and also it has been acted upon . By observing so, the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and ordered eviction by specifically holding that the respondent Wakf is the landlord of the petition mentioned property and entitled to collect the rent from the petitioner. 10. The contradictory stand taken by the petitioner one before the Civil Court in O.S.No. 8934 of 1994 and another before the Rent Controller in this proceedings is evident from his own pleadings as rightly found by the appellate Court. The petitioner having taken a stand before the Civil Court that he is a statutory tenant and cannot be evicted except by due process of law, cannot be permitted to contend with a contradictory stand in this eviction proceedings that he is in possession of the property based on Ex.R2 mortgage deed, when he has not chosen to speak anything about the same in the suit filed by him. The lower appellate Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not proved the said mortgage deed in the manner known to law . At any event when the property was already vested with the Wakf Board as seen under Ex.P3, then the question of mortgaging the same without sanction from the Wakf Board also goes against the contention raised by the petitioner. 11. At any event when the property was already vested with the Wakf Board as seen under Ex.P3, then the question of mortgaging the same without sanction from the Wakf Board also goes against the contention raised by the petitioner. 11. Considering all these facts and circumstances and also considering the well merited judgment of the Appellate Authority, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. It is also fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, 8 the petitioner has already been evicted and possession has been taken by the landlord. When that also being the factual position, I find no grounds to interfere in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.