1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. Sanglikar, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondents.

2. This Revision Application takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 19th October 2013 passed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court at Fort, Greater Bombay, in Short Cause Suit No.612 of 2010, thereby overruling the objection raised by the Applicants to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the Suit, in view of the bar created under Sections 10 and 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

3. The Applicants herein are the owners of the premises, which are given to the Respondents on licence basis, by virtue of an 'Agreement' dated 11th December 1975. Admittedly, the premises are 'public premises' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short, “Public Premises Eviction Act”). By the notice dated 22nd December 2009, the Applicants terminated the license by giving one month's notice and called upon the Respondents to handover peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the Applicants within one month from 1st January 2010. It was further informed that, on failure of the Respondents to vacate the premises within the stipulated period, the Respondents will be treated as 'unauthorized occupants', after the expiry of the said period, and Applicants shall then initiate the action of eviction, as per the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act.

4. Respondents herein had then filed this Suit before the Trial Court for a declaration that the notice dated 22nd December 2009 is unlawful, illegal and void and for further declaration that, the grant of the suit premises to the Respondents is as an 'irrevocable licensee' and, therefore, the Applicants be restrained from acting on the said notice.

5. The Applicants, on their appearance in the Trial Court, filed the application at “Exhibit-2” for rejection of the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, in view of the bar created under Sections 15 and 10 of the Public Premises Eviction Act. The Trial Court has, accordingly, framed the preliminary issue on that point and directed the parties to adduce evidence.

6. Meanwhile, the Respondents also filed an application at “Exhibit- 66”, claiming the relief that the application filed at “Exhibit-2” be dismissed and Notice of Motion no.626 of 2010 filed by them for grant of temporary injunction be heard and decided along with the Suit.

7. By an order dated 17th April 2012, the Trial Court allowed the application at “Exhibit-66” and rejected the application at “Exhibit-2”, holding that the order of the Estate Officer passed on 7th March 2012 was challenged by the Respondents before the Appellate Authority and it was quashed and set aside on 19th March 2012. The Trial Court held that, in view of the said order, the application at “Exhibit-2”, filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, has become infructuous and, accordingly, dismissed the same.

8. The Applicants had thereafter filed another application at “Exhibit-68”, under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, the cause of action to file the Suit does not survive, as the eviction proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, under the Public Premises Eviction Act, were finally disposed of. The Trial Court has rejected the said application by order dated 17th April 2012. This order of the Trial Court was challenged by the Applicants in Civil Application No.78 of 2013 in Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.5054 of 2013. This Court has, vide its order dated 7th August 2013, allowed the said Civil Revision Application holding that,

“6. It is not in dispute that the suit premises are the 'public premises', covered by the provisions of the said Act. It is not in d