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 confers upon the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, in Greater Bombay an extended jurisdiction. That extended jurisdiction is to entertain try any suit or proceeding between a landlord a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of Part II apply to decide any application made under the Act to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions; the section further provides that no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. Therefore, to the extent that the Small Causes Court has been conferred this special or extended jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the High Court has been undoubtedly ousted. It is necessary to remember that under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act under Chap. VII the Small Causes Court had been given jurisdiction with regard to property of a certain value to pass orders of eviction in favour of owners of property who wanted to eject either their tenants or their licensees. Applications under Chap. VII of that Act were not suits the orders passed by the Small Causes Court were not decrees the parties affected by the order made under that Chapter had the right expressly reserved to them to litigate the question of their title in the High Court. By reason of Section 28, to the extent that the applications under Chap. VII were between landlords tenants to the extent that the landlords sought ejectment against their tenants, these applications no longer continued to remain applications under that Chapter, but under Section 28 of the Rent Control Act they become suits the suits result in decrees which are binding as between parties are also conclusive subject to right of appeal under Section 29. Therefore to the extent that suits are between landlords tenants, the jurisdiction of the High Court which had been expressly reserved under Chap. VII has been taken away a new extended special jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Small Causes Court again as far as suits between landlords tenants are concerned.

3. Now, what is urged on behalf of the defts. is that Section 28 does not merely confer jurisdiction upon the Small Causes Court to entertain try any suit or proceeding between a landlord a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises, but it also confers jurisdiction upon the Small Causes Court to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Rent Control Act, it is therefore urged that a question as to whether the deft. is a tenant or a licensee is a question that arises out of the Rent Control Act. There can be no doubt that when a pltf. files a suit against a deft. alleging that he is his licens