( 1 ) SHORTLY stated the facts leading to this petition are as under: The opponent-Corporation which is the original plaintiff filed two civil suits being Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1972 and Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Kalavad against the present applicant for his eviction and possession of the suit premises and for arrears of rent and damages. Both the suits were consolidated. The suits were filed on April 29 1971 During the pendency of the suits the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 came in force. The applicant therefore gave an application in the suits that as the provisions of the said Act relate to eviction of the applicant from the public premises which are admittedly governed by the said Act the Civil Courts jurisdiction was ousted in view of the clear provision contained in sec. 16 of the said Act. The applicant prayed that necessary issues be raised in that behalf. The trial Court granted the application and raised the issue whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits. In the opinion of the learned trial Judge since the Act came into force on June 26 1973 Sec. 16 of the said Act would not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in pending actions. In that view of the matter the learned trial Judge by his order of January 31 1976 answered the issue in the affirmative and in favour of the Corporation It is this order which is the subject matter of this revision application before me.

( 2 ) A short but interesting question arises as to what is the effect of sec. 16 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 which came in force on June 26 1973 Sec. 16 reads as under: 16 No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or for any other reason specified in sub-sec. (1) or sec. 4 or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 or the damages payable under sub-sec. (2) of that section or the costs awarded to the State Government or the Corporate authority under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 9 or any portion of such rent damages or costs. By this section the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of any person on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or on any other ground specifically enumerated in the said section. It is common ground between the parties before me that the premises occupied by the applicant herein are owned by the opponent-Corporation in terms of the definition of words public premises given in sec. 2 (f) of the said Act. It is also common ground that the suits were pending in the Civil Court when the said Act came into force. It is settled position of law that in general when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action the rights of parties are decided according to the law as existed when the action was begun unless new statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights (vide Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 12 Edition page 220 ). In the ultimate analysis therefore it is always a question of legislative intent whether Civil Courts jurisdiction in pending actions is ousted by change in law. It may be done by express language or by necessary implications. In order to answer the question raised in issue whether the Civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted by necessary implication as evinced in sec. 16 of the Act one has to look to the language of sec. 16 itself The section prohibits Civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of a person on the prescribed ground from the public premises. The problem therefore is: what is the meaning of expression to entert- ain any suit or proceeding Does it mean to receive and determine or adjudicate upon or consider on merits. My attention has