ORDER : 1. Challenging the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.08.2005, passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Wakf Tribunal, Thanjavur, in Wakf O.P.No. 29 of 2004, the civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/respondent. 2. The wakf original petition had been laid by the respondent/petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner/respondent restraining him and his men from in any way interfering with the respondent/petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject property as tenant till he is lawfully evicted through process of law. 3. According to the case of the respondent/petitioner, the subject property belonged to the petitioner – Thaikkal and he had entered into a tenancy arrangement with the erstwhile Muthavalli of the petitioner – Thaikkal and accordingly, paying the rent and also took appropriate steps to record his name under R.T.R.Act 10/69 and while so, according to the case of the respondent herein, the present Muthavalli of the petitioner – Thaikkal directed him to surrender possession of the subject property so as to enable them to sell the same to third parties by converting it into plots and as he had resisted the same, it is his case that the petitioner – Thaikkal through its Muthavalli made attempts to dispossess him from the subject property and hence, he has been necessitated to lay the wakf original petition for appropriate relief. 4. The case of the respondent herein is resisted by the petitioner – Thaikkal contending that the respondent is not the tenant under the petitioner – Thaikkal in respect of the subject property as pleaded by him and it is false to state that he had taken steps to record his name as tenant before the concerned Authority and it is also stated that one Vijayakumar was the cultivating tenant in respect of the subject property under the petitioner – Thaikkal and had not paid the lease amount properly and according to the petitioner – Thaikkal, the respondent is claiming right in the subject property through Vijayakumar and thus, the respondent is not entitled to seek for any relief as against the petitioner – Thaikkal as a tenant in respect of the subject property and therefore, it is contended that the respondent is not entitled to obtain the relief prayed for. 5. 5. In support of the respondent/petitioner's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P11 have been marked and on the side of the petitioner/respondent, R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R1 to R6 have been marked. 6. The Wakf Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence tendered by the respective parties, found that the respondent herein had established that he is the tenant in respect of the subject property under the petitioner – Thaikkal by producing the lease receipts marked as Exs.P1 to P7 and also through his evidence examined as P.W.1 and also through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The Court below had analyzed the lease receipts above mentioned and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the proper perspective and found that by the same, the respondent has established that he is the tenant in respect of the subject property prima facie and paying the lease amount to the petitioner – Thaikkal. That apart, it is also found that by notice, dated 03.07.2000, marked as Ex.P9, the Wakf Inspector had also directed the respondent to come forward for a discussion and from the same also it has been found that inasmuch as the respondent had been enjoying the subject property as a tenant he had been directed to come forward for consultation/discussion by the Wakf Inspector. In addition to that, it is also noted that the respondent herein had also moved the appropriate authority to record his name as the tenant in respect of the subject property and this could be seen from the application preferred by him in Form No.V, which has been marked as Ex.P8. Therefore, considering the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P7 coupled with Exs.P8 and P9, the Wakf Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the respondent herein had prima facie established his possession in respect of the subject property as the tenant under the petitioner – Thaikkal. 7. According to the petitioner – Thaikkal, the respondent herein is not a tenant of the subject property. It is the specific case of the respondent that he became a tenant of the subject property pursuant to the lease arrangement entered into with the erstwhile Muthavalli of the petitioner – Thaikkal. Now, it is found that the present Muthavalli is contesting the claim of the respondent. The present Muthavalli has been examined as R.W.1. It is the specific case of the respondent that he became a tenant of the subject property pursuant to the lease arrangement entered into with the erstwhile Muthavalli of the petitioner – Thaikkal. Now, it is found that the present Muthavalli is contesting the claim of the respondent. The present Muthavalli has been examined as R.W.1. As seen from the evidence of R.W.1 tendered during both chief-examination as well as cross-examination, it is found that he has admitted that there are documents entrusted to him at the time of his assumption of the office as Muthavalli of the petitioner – Thaikkal and also further admitted that if the said documents are perused, the same would give the list of tenants in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner – Thaikkal. In such view of the matter, when the petitioner – Thaikkal is in possession of the best and relevant documents, which would clinch the issue as to whether the respondent herein is the tenant of the petitioner – Thaikkal or not, the petitioner – Thaikkal could have established its case by producing its record. On the other hand, though documents are available with the petitioner – Thaikkal to exhibit the status of the respondent herein in respect of the subject property, for the reasons best known to the petitioner – Thaikkal, the said documents have not been placed before the Court. Therefore, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against the petitioner – Thaikkal and found that those documents have been suppressed by the petitioner – Thaikkal as it would divulge the truth of the respondent's case. 8. The case of the petitioner – Thaikkal is that one Vijayakumar had been a tenant of the subject property and it is their further case that the respondent has claimed to be in possession of the subject property through Vijayakumar. However, there is no material produced on the part of the petitioner – Thaikkal to establish that Vijayakumar had been in possession of the subject property as a tenant under the petitioner – Thaikkal and therefore, it could be seen that the above case of the petitioner – Thaikkal cannot be countenanced as such. However, there is no material produced on the part of the petitioner – Thaikkal to establish that Vijayakumar had been in possession of the subject property as a tenant under the petitioner – Thaikkal and therefore, it could be seen that the above case of the petitioner – Thaikkal cannot be countenanced as such. The Tribunal has considered the documents put forth by the petitioner – Thaikkal and held that the same does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner – Thaikkal, or disprove the claim of the respondent herein. 9. In the light of the above discussions, the present contention of the petitioner's counsel that the Wakf Tribunal has erred in throwing the burden on the petitioner – Thaikkal to disprove the claim of the respondent is erroneous and therefore, the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal is liable to be set aside as such cannot be accepted. However, considering the order of the Wakf Tribunal, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has not upheld the respondent's case merely on the failure of the petitioner – Thaikkal to produce the documents available with them, on the other hand, it has found that the respondent herein has established his case by examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and also by marking the documents Exs.P1 to P11 and coupled with that also held that when direct and best evidence is available with the petitioner – Thaikkal to disprove the claim of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner – Thaikkal owes a duty to place those documents before the Court to disclose the truth and inasmuch as the petitioner – Thaikkal for the reasons best known to them did not place the said documents, has taken adverse interference against them and thereby also upheld the case of the respondent herein. Therefore, the argument now put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Wakf Tribunal has erred in throwing the burden on the petitioner – Thaikkal as such cannot be accepted in any manner. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to move the Civil Court for the relief sought for and hence, the wakf original petition is not maintainable. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to move the Civil Court for the relief sought for and hence, the wakf original petition is not maintainable. However, as rightly found by the Wakf Tribunal when the respondent has sought the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb his possession unlawfully except under due process of law on the footing that he is the tenant of the subject property under the petitioner – Thaikkal and when the same had been prima facie established by him, it is found that the respondent is entitled to maintain his action in the civil forum and therefore, the contention now put forth that the respondent's action is not legally sustainable cannot be countenanced. 11. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject property has not been properly described by the respondent/plaintiff. The said defence has been taken on the footing that the subject property fall under Survey No.105/1A, 1B, 1, 3 and there is no survey number as 105 and therefore, it is contended that the respondent is not entitled to obtain the relief sought for. However, as rightly held by the Wakf Tribunal, when it is found that the subject property had been properly described by the respondent/plaintiff by giving the extent and also boundaries and also when the extent and boundaries are not disputed by the petitioner – Thaikkal, it is found that the contention of the petitioner – Thaikkal that the description of the subject property is not properly given as such also cannot be accepted in any manner. 12. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal has considered all the contentions of the respective parties in all aspects and also in the right perspective both factually as well as legally and correctly held that the respondent is entitled to obtain the relief prayed for and accordingly, disposed of the case in his favour. In such view of the matter, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Wakf Tribunal are found to be perfectly in order and do not call for any interference from this Court. 13. In conclusion, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.