A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Camp Rawat-bhhta on 14. 1. 88, whereby he has decided issue Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner. Hence the present revision petition.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent was contractor of the Union of India in the Atomic Energy Station at Rawatbhata. He was allotted one Quarter in the premises of the Atomic Energy Station at Rawatbhata for necessary com-pletion of the work. A letter dated December 20, 1985 was issued by the peti-tioner No. 3, Chief Administrative Officer, Atomic Power Station, Rawatbhata, directing him to vacate the premises. Against this order a suit was filed by respondent M/s Bal Erectors, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C. P. C, praying for an interim injunction against respondent, not to dispossess him from the premises in question. A reply was filed by the petitioners and they submitted that since these are Public premises, therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction by virtue of S. 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971' ). Preliminary issues were framed, issue No. 5 and 6 reads as under: ***** The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties held issue No. 5 and 6 against the petitioner. While deciding issue No. 5 the learned Magistrate held that since no action has been initiated under the Act of 1971, therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. While deciding issue No. 6, the learned Magistrate held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred on account of s. 29 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. So far as issue No. 6 is concerned, no argument has been raised. Therefore, I need not touch the finding given by the learned Magistrate under issue No, 6. Now, the only argument raised before me is regarding issue No, 5. Affidavit has been filed before this Court of Mr. Ramesh Chander, advocate, representing the petitioner and he has stated in his affidavit that a notice had been issued on 18. 12. 87 by the Estate Officer under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Act of 1971. As such, it has been stated that the Estate Officer has already initiated the proceedings against the respondent for eviction under this Act. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that s. 15 places a clear bar for entertainment of a suit by a civil court in a suit for public premi-ses which is being occupied unauthorised by the occupant. S. 15 of the Act reads as under: " 15. Bar of jurisdiction, No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of- (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or (b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5a or (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5b or (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5c, or (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2) or interest payable under sub-section (2 A) of that section, or (e) the recovery of (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5a, or (ii) expenses of demolition under section 5b, or (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9, or (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submits that since notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent that he should vacate the premises, as such his continuation after that notice has become unauthorised. LEARNED counsel submitted that the public premises has been defined in s. 2 (c) of the Act which is as under: " 2. Definitions,- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . (c) "premises means any land or any building or part of a building and includes,- (i) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building, and (ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. " Unauthorised occupation has been defined in s. 2 (g) of the Act which reads as under: ''2 (g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the pre-mises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. " Learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that both these condi-tions are satisfied in the present case that the plaintiff-respondent is unauthori-sedly occupying these public premises, therefore, the Civil Court u/s 15 is barred from entertaining the present suit. It is not disputed that these premises are public premises, as they are the Quarters of the Atomic Energy Department of the Central Government. Against this, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, stren-uously urged before me that u/s 9 of the C. P. C. , a suit, can be entertained by the civil court as at the time of the filing of the suit it was not known whether the authorities are going to proceed under the Act of 1971 or not. Since he received a notice for eviction of the premises, therefore, there was no option with the plaintiff-respondent, except to file a suit and obtain a restrain order Against the defendant-petitioner from evicting the plaintiff from the premises in question. Learned counsel submits that since the suit has been entertained, therefore, the civil court continue to have jurisdiction. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. (1 ). ;