( 1 ) THE plaintiff-tenant filed the present suit against the defendants (landlords) for a declaration that he has been the tenant in respect of Khadki open chawk and loft along with the other premises admittedly let out to him. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of those three premises in question. The defendants denied his claim. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the chawk the khadki and the loft but had been merely using them. The learned trial Judge therefore did not grant the plaintiff the declaration but issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of those three premises in question because the plaintiff has all along been in possession thereof and enjoying it. The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The appellate Bench allowed the appeal and declared that the plaintiff has been the tenant in respect of the khadki the open chawk and the loft and confirmed the injunction issued by the learned trial Judge. In that view of the matter the decree passed by the learned trial Judge was modified and the plaintiffs prayers in full were granted.

( 2 ) IT is that decree which is challenged by the defendant-landlords in this civil revision application.

( 3 ) THE finding recorded by the appellate Bench on the contentions on merits are all findings of fact with which this Court cannot interfere in b civil revision application. Therefore the only serious contention which Mr. Mehta who appears on behalf of the defendants has raised is that the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. It is indisputable that the Court of Small Causes will have no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit but for the provisions of sec. 28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 It is therefore necessary to turn to sec. 28 in order to find out whether the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It may however be noted that this contention was not raised before any of the two Courts below. It has been raised by the defendants for the first time in this Court. However since the contention raised by Mr. Mehta relates to the jurisdiction which in its turn is to be determined with reference to the provisions of sec. 28 I have allowed him to raise it.

( 4 ) SUB-SEC. (1) of sec. 28 of the Rent Act inter alia provides as follows:"notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason the suit or proceeding would not but for this provisions be within its jurisdiction (a) in the City of Ahmedabad the Court of Small Causes of Ahmedabad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Part apply and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions and subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question". SUB-SEC. (1) of sec. 28 makes it clear that the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction inter alia to entertain and try any proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of the premises to which part II of the said Act applies. This is not a suit for recovery of rent or possession. That sub-section further provides that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to decide any application made under the said Act. The present suit is not an application made u