Judgment : The A.P. Wakf Board, respondent herein, filed A.T.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Special Officer, A.P. Tenancy Tribunal-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 13 of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the revision petitioners herein from the petition schedule property. In the tenancy case, the revision petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.41 of 2011, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), with a prayer to decide the jurisdiction with regard to the maintainability of the case, as per the decision of this Court in ShameemSulthana V. Syed Ibrahim Quadri and another (L.C. 2011(12) A.P. 179). The respondent filed counter contending that the tenancy case was filed basing on the judgment in A.S.No.90 of 2003 passed by the II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below disposed of the petition by order dated 05.06.2012. The same is under challenge in this civil revision petition. The order of the Court below is not clear. When a petition about maintainability is filed, it should be allowed or dismissed, but in the present case, it is disposed of and it is not clear whether the relief is granted or denied. The Court below is expected to be very clear in disposing of such kind of matters. From the tenor of the order, it is seen that the relief is denied. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, as there is bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts under Section 85 r/w Sections 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) and that without referring to these Sections and also the judgment of this Court rendered in Shameem Sulthana case (1 supra), the Special Officer negatived the claim of the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the tenancy case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no dispute regarding the title of the petition schedule property, as such, it is not covered under the bar envisaged under Section 85 r/w Sections 7 and 83 of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no dispute regarding the title of the petition schedule property, as such, it is not covered under the bar envisaged under Section 85 r/w Sections 7 and 83 of the Act. He also contended that the tenancy case was filed in pursuance of the judgment in A.S.No.90 of 2003 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, to which, the revision petitioners are parties. It is also contended that the petitioners had taken a plea in A.S.No.90 of 2003 that they were the tenants of the respondent and that, at any rate, the findings in the said appeal had become final. Therefore, the revision petitioners cannot contend that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010 (5) ALT 36 (SC). Sections 83, 85 and 7 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under: “Section 83 of the Act envisages Constitution of Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf and Wakf property under the said Act. Section 85 of the Act – Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts :- No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. Section 7 of the Act – Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs – If, after the commencement of this Act, any question arises, whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs is wakf property or not, or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or a Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf, or any person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relating to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final.” Section 7 of the Act deals with the dispute regarding title i.e., whether a property is wakf property or not. But, a Tribunal constituted under the said Act will not have any jurisdiction in relation to other matters when the title to the property is not in dispute. Even in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in ShameemSulthana case (1 supra), only when there is a title dispute, bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts is attracted. This Court in Adoni Syed Khader Macci-UI Bhokari Darga Katta @ Macci Mhader Saheb Darga Katta Committee, Adoni V. Shaikan Bee and others ( 2011 (4) ALT 812 (DB) held that when a dispute is relating to eviction of a tenant in occupation of wakf property, a petition can be filed before the civil Court only and not before the wakf Tribunal. In Ramesh Gobindram case (2 supra), the Apex Court held in paras 21 and 22 of its judgment as follows: “21. There is, in our view, nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. It is noteworthy that the expression "for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property" appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act. Section 85 does not, however, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of any or every question or disputes only because the same relates to a wakf or a wakf property. Section 85 in terms provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall stand excluded in relation to only such matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. 22. In the cases at hand the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed.” In the present case, even in the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC regarding the maintainability of the tenancy case, the petitioners have not stated that there is a title dispute and they have not stated any valid ground to say that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. On the other hand, the revision petitioners have taken a stand that they are tenants in A.S.No.90 of 2003. In view of the above discussion and the provisions referred to supra and in view of the fact that there is no title dispute with regard to the petition schedule property, I am of the opinion that civil Court/Special Officer under the Tenancy Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute in the present case, as such, the civil revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 03.10.2012 is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the civil revision petition shall stand disposed of.