JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - These civil misc. applications under Section 83(9) of Waqf Act, 1995 have been preferred by the petitioners, claiming in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the miscellaneous application may kindly be allowed and the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the CEO, Waqf Board Jaipur in Case No.55/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and further, the case itself may kindly be ordered to be dismissed as being barred by law and being not maintainable. Any other relief in any form which is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The dispute is pertaining to the property situated in the heart of the Jodhpur City in Takiya Chand Shah Market. The respondent No.1 has let out its property to the petitioners, which was Shop No.2 in the year 1974, Shop No.14 in the year 1972, Shop No.12 in the year 2000, Shop No.3 in the year 1993 and Shop No.4 in the year 1998 respectively. The respondent No.1 on 12.11.2018 filed an application under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1995') for removal of encroachment from the property in question in relation to the shops of the petitioners. The Waqf Board issued notices on 27.11.2018 under Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 54 of the Act of 1995. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 12.03.2019 on the ground that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the said dispute, since it was a dispute between the landlord and tenant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a bare reading of Section 54 of the Act of 1995, it becomes clear that it can be invoked only for removal of encroachment from Waqf property, whereas it is an admitted position that the petitioners are tenant, and any deviation of the petitioners from the tenancy would at best attract the eviction proceeding from tenancy property. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Section 6 which has given power under the Act of 1995 for referring the dispute to the Tribunal only talks of the dispute pertaining to the Waqf property being referred to the Tribunal, and does not entitle the respondent to take up the issue in the garb of treating it to be an eviction proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 , the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "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. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. 22. 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 over-ruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that once the amendment was made in Section 83 of the Act of 1995 and a specific legislative intention was pronounced that once there would be a power with regard to the jurisdiction of Civil Court in relation to any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, required to be determined by the Tribunal, then such dispute has to be resolved strictly in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Sham Singh Harike, (2019) 4 SCC 698 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Ramesh Gobindram (supra), has come out with a clear finding that Section 83(1) of the Act of 1995 specifically includes eviction of a tenant and determination of rights and obligation of the lessor and the lessee of such property, and therefore, the adjudication made by the Civil Court would be barred. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "45. Section 83 sub-section (1) has been substituted by Act 27 of 2013. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "45. Section 83 sub-section (1) has been substituted by Act 27 of 2013. Substituted sub-section (1) is as follows: "Section 83(1).- The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals." 46. Section 83 sub-section (1) specifically includes eviction of a tenant or determination of rights or obligations of the lessor and lessee of such property. ................. 53. Coming to Section 83 which relates to bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court, the relevant words are "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property" which is required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. Thus, bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court is confined only to those matters which are required to be determined by the Tribunal under this Act. Thus, Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain suit and proceedings which are not required by or under the Act, 1995 to be determined. Thus, answering the question of jurisdiction, question has to be asked whether the issue raised in the suit or proceeding is required to be decided under the Act, 1995 by the Tribunal, under any provision or not. In the event, the answer is affirmative, the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court shall operate." 8. Learned counsel for the respondent however, is not in a position to refute that Section 54 deals only with encroachment, and the present dispute resolution can be held within the ambit of Section 54 of the Act of 1995. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the latest pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab Wakf Board (supra) has been made after considering the earlier judgment of Ramesh Gobindram (supra), and thus, the same shall hold the field in relation to the present dispute. 10. 10. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which has been pronounced under Section 83, is very clear, as it requires the Tribunal to decide any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, even if it is related to eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of lessor and the lessee of such property. 11. The averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners is significant that Section 54 is barely dealing with the encroachment in a similar procedure, whereas once Section 83 (1), which deals with Constitution of Tribunals, has brought the subject of eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee, then the ambit of Tribunals alone is a proper procedure. 12. The dismissal of the proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of the same not being within the ambit of the Waqf Act itself, cannot be accepted by this Court, as Section 83 is giving the requisite power to the Tribunals to deal with the eviction proceeding of the waqf property. The precedent law of Punjab Wakf Board (supra) is absolutely applicable in the present case. 13. Thus, while upholding the decision of the learned Authority below dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this Court disposes of the present misc. applications with the direction to the learned Authority below to decide as to what was the necessary procedure, which shall be required to be adopted under the ambit of Act of 1995, while dealing with the dispute under Section 83 of the Act of 1995. Such decision shall be taken by the learned Authority below in an expeditious manner, by passing a speaking order, upon a fresh application being filed by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law. The precedent law of Punjab Wakf Board (supra) shall be kept into consideration, while undertaking such an exercise. Thus, this Court, while having no doubt that the dispute pertaining to a waqf property, particularly, eviction of the tenant, has to be dealt with under the Act of 1995, but as regards, the procedure to be adopted, as the present dispute falls within the ambit of Section 83 of the Act of 1995, the same shall be decided by the learned Authority below at the threshold. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.