ORDER : 1. Revision petitioner, who is the original petitioner before the Waqf Tribunal in O.A. No. 3/2009, has filed this revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, challenging order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Waqf Tribunal in the above Original Application. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein. 2. The revision petitioner would contend that he had been in possession of building No. 1/1995 on the basis of a rental arrangement entered into between himself and one K.P. Abdurahiman as per rent deed dated 25.07.1982. However, on 28.02.2001, the 2nd respondent issued a notice stating that the 2nd respondent purchased the above building and future rent to be paid to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board passed order dated 19.12.2008 holding the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant of the waqf building and thereby he was directed to be evicted. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, the petitioner, who took the building on rent, cannot be held as an unauthorised occupier of the building under Section 54 of the Waqf Act and therefore, the order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board dated 19.12.2008 is illegal. Further it is submitted that the Tribunal would have reversed said finding in an application filed under Section 83 of the Waqf Act upholding the contention raised by the revision petitioner. 4. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents supported the order of the Waqf Board and the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal ventured the power of the waqf Board under Section 54(3) of the Kerala Waqf Act in tune with the definition of ‘encroachment’ as defined under Rule 2(1)(ha) of Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996. After interpreting the definition of ‘encroachment’ under the said Rule, it was found by the Tribunal that an encroachment in relation to any encroachment under the occupation by any person of the waqf premises without authority for such occupation and includes continuance in occupation after authority by way of grant or has been determined for any reasons whatsoever and includes any construction, alteration or additions carried out to the building without authority. So the definition of the ‘encroachment’ comes under Rule (ha) of the Kerala waqf Rule is wider enough to include a person who continues occupation of the property beyond the period of lease and without paying rent, etc. There is no dispute to the fact that plaint schedule property is a waqf property. 6. The Tribunal also held that there is no dispute regarding the status of the property as waqf property though initially it was the property of one K.P. Abdurahiman before its dedication. This factual finding not disputed in any manner. 7. An interesting question that crops up for consideration is; whether a person in occupation of a building situated in a waqf property on the basis of a lease arrangement, can be categorised as a person who had done the act of 'encroachment' as envisaged under Section 54(3) of the waqf Act, 1995? If so, in what context? Section 54 of the waqf Act deals with removal of encroachment from the waqf property and sub section 3 of Section 54 stipulates the procedure to be followed before deciding the property in question as waqf property and there has been an encroachment into the waqf property. Section 54(1) to (3) are extracted hereunder for easy understanding: “54. Removal of encroachment from waqf property: (1) Whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers whether on receiving any complaint or on his own motion that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property which is waqf property and, which has been registered as such under this Act, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling upon him to show cause before a date to be specified in such notice as to why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date so specified should not be made and shall also send a copy of such notice to the concerned mutawalli. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) If, after considering the objections, received during the period specified in the notice, and after conducting an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is waqf property and that there has been an encroachment on any such waqf property, he may by an order, require the encroacher to remove such encroachment and deliver possession of the land, building, space or other property encroached upon to the mutawalli of the waqf.” 8. In this context, reference to the relevant provisions dealing with lease is apposite. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that on getting lease of an immovable property, the person getting the said right is called a lessee. Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act deals with tenancy by holding over and it is provided as under: “If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.” However, the Kerala Waqf Act, 1995 and the Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 are special enactments to deal with the dispute and administration of waqf properties. Therefore, the Waqf Act and the Kerala Waqf Rules have predominance over the general provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Section 3(ee) of the Waqf Act, 1995 brought into force by way of amendment with effect from 20.09.2013 defines the term ‘encroacher’ and the said provision is extracted hereunder: 3(ee): ‘encroacher’ means any person or institution, public or private, occupying waqf property, in whole or part, without the authority of law and includes a person whose tenancy, lease or licence has expired or has been terminated by mutawalli or the Board. It is to be noted that before the amendment of the principal Act, the State of Kerala had amended the Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 by incorporating Rule 2(1)(ha) and the said provision brought into force with effect from 27.7.2005. It is to be noted that before the amendment of the principal Act, the State of Kerala had amended the Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 by incorporating Rule 2(1)(ha) and the said provision brought into force with effect from 27.7.2005. Therefore, Rule 2(1)(ha) is available when this matter was considered by the Tribunal.” 9. Matters being so, the definition of the word ‘encroachment’ as contained under Rule 2(1)(ha) of the Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 to be applied in the facts of this case to decide the status of the petitioner. Rule 2(1)(ha) of the Kerala Waqf Rules defines the term ‘encroachment’ as under: “2. Definitions: (1) xxx xxx xxx (a) xxx xxx xxx (ha) ‘encroachment’ in relation to any waqf premises means occupation by any person of the waqf premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the waqf premises after the authority whether by way of grant or has been determined for any reason whatsoever, and includes any construction, alteration or addition carried out to the building without the authority.....” On a careful reading of Rule 2(1)(ha), it could be gathered that continuance in occupation by any person of the waqf premises after the authority whether by way of grant, also would come under the category of encroachment. If so, it has to he held that a person, who obtained occupation of a building on the basis of a lease and continuing the same in respect of a waqf property after termination or expiry of the rental arrangement to be held as a person who made ‘encroachment’ into the waqf property and his status is that of an encroacher. 10. Before parting, we would like to observe that the Kerala State Waqf Rules, 1996 was repealed by enacting the Kerala State Waqf Rules, 2019 came into force with effect from 10.01.2019. 10. Before parting, we would like to observe that the Kerala State Waqf Rules, 1996 was repealed by enacting the Kerala State Waqf Rules, 2019 came into force with effect from 10.01.2019. Section 2(i) of the amended Rules defines the term ‘encroachment’ in a more elaborate manner and the same also is extracted below: 2(i) ‘encroachment’ in relation to any waqf premises means occupation by any person of the waqf premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the waqf premises after the authority whether by way of grant, lease, licence or transfer authorising such occupation which has been expired or terminated for any reason whatsoever and includes any construction, alteration or addition carried out to the building without the authority. 11. In the case on hand the revision petitioner put up a specific case that he had entered into rental arrangement with one K.P. Abdurahiman as per rent deed dated 25.07.1982, but the same was not renewed thereafter. This would show that the lease had expired when proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act was initiated. Be it so, the status of the petitioner is nothing but other than that of an encroacher. 12. Thus it has to be held that the Waqf Board has the power under Section 54 of the Waqf Act to order eviction of encroachers from the waqf property. 13. Viewing the materials available, we could notice that the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board passed order under Section 54 of the Waqf Act after following the procedure under Section 54(3) and the revision petitioner also failed to establish any procedure violation. If so, it has to be held that the order passed by the Waqf Board, Ernakulam in proceedings E4-4002/06-1 dated 19.12.2008 is well within its sweep and therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed O.A. No. 3/2009 challenging the same. The said finding was affirmed by the Tribunal as well. 14. In view of the discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and consequently the order is confirmed. 15. In the result, this Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.