DBSHMUKH D. K. , J.

( 1 ) IN this suit, by order dated 3rd February, 2005 two preliminary issues have been framed in accordance with the provisions of section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code, which read as under :-" (I) Does defendant No. 1 prove that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and presidency Small Causes Court Act ? (ii) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the suit as framed and filed is not maintainable in this Court in view of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act ?"both the parties stated that they do not want to lead oral evidence in relation to these issues. Therefore, on the basis of pleadings and the documents produced by both the parties, I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1.

( 2 ) NOW first taking up the Issue No. 1, the learned Counsel for defendant no. 1 submits that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is barred by the provisions of section 33 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act. He submitted that by this suit, a decree for the specific performance of the obligations imposed on the defendant No. 1 as a lessee in t