Chagla C.J.

1. The plffs. filed the suit against the defts. alleging that they were licensees of certain property in the possession of the plffs., that the license had been properly legally terminated that they were entitled to an order of eviction against the defts. The contention of the defts, was that they were not licensees but tenants therefore were protected under the Rent Restriction Act. The main substantial issue which Shah J. had to determine was whether the defts. were licensees as alleged by the plffs. or tenants as alleged by them. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defts. were licensees not tenants thereupon passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the plffs. It is from this decree that this appeal is preferred.

2. Before I deal with the merits of the case, there is a preliminary question that has got to be considered decided that is whether this Court had jurisdiction to try this suit. It is contended on behalf of the defts. that in view of Section 28, Bombay Act LVII (57) of 1947 this Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit the suit should have been tried disposed of by the Small Causes Court. Turning to Section 28, it