JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. (Order on Review Application No. 203774 of 2015) Petitioners seek review of the order dated 26.5.2015 essentially on the ground that the Waqf Act has been amended vide Act No.27 of 2013, whereby section 83 has been substituted and a dispute of eviction of tenant or determination of right and liabilities of the lessor have also been included, as an issue on which Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate. Submission is that since the Tribunal had jurisdiction to go into the issue of tenancy and eviction of a tenant, as such, the orders passed by the courts below were without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that placing of reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayn Mirza Wakf: AIR 2010 SC 2897 is not relevant for the purposes, as the amendment came in the Act thereafter. It is also submitted that the plea of jurisdiction will have to be seen on the date of adjudication of lis by the court concerned, which was in the year 2014, and as such, the court concerned had no jurisdiction and the matter was exclusively cognizable by the Waqf Tribunal. It has been submitted that law applicable on the date of adjudication would be relevant and for the purposes reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumari and another vs. Prem Behari Khari: (1989) 2 SCC 95 . 2. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, in reply, submits that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Govindram (supra) has been followed again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in Faseela M. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another, delivered in Civil Appeal No.4250-4252 of 2014. It is stated that the amended provisions of section 83 were considered in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court and the law laid down in Ramesh Gobindram (supra) has been reiterated. It is stated that the amended provisions of section 83 were considered in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court and the law laid down in Ramesh Gobindram (supra) has been reiterated. Sri Qadeer further submits that the provisions of section 7(5) would also be attracted in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the amendment has come into existence only in the year 2013, whereas the suit had been filed in the year 1998, and therefore, the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by virtue of Act No.27 of 2013 would not bar the suit pending on the date of introduction of the amendment. 3. Having considered the submissions, aforesaid, this Court finds that the issue which is sought to be urged in review by the learned counsel for the petitioners is no longer res integra inasmuch as amended provision of section 83 has been considered in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Faseela M. (supra) and after noticing the said provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under in para 17: - "The matter before us is wholly and squarely covered by Ramesh Gobindram[ (2010) 8 SCC 726 ]. The suit for eviction against the tenant relating to a waqf property is exclusively triable by the civil court as such suit is not covered by the disputes specified in Sections 6 & 7 of the Act." 4. Even otherwise, I find substance in the contention raised by Sri Qadeer that amending act, which has brought the eviction of a tenant within the jurisdiction of Tribunal, would not affect the present suit, which was pending on the date of coming into being of amendment act. Admittedly, the suit had been filed in the year 1998, and therefore, the principle laid down in section 7(5) of the Act would be clearly attracted. 5. No other point has been pressed. 6. The review application lacks merit and is dismissed.