{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2011 Deputy General Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai & others Petitioners Versus Sharad s/o Gangaram Thakre Respondent Mr.M.K.Goyanka, advocate for petitioners. Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07 th April, 2011 PER COURT: 1 An application was tendered by the Corporation – original defendant objecting to the tenability of the suit on the ground of bar contained in Section 8A of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. 2 Suit is presented by the respondent herein claiming declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the premises so also the plaintiff claims decree against defendants restraining them from dispossessing plaintiff without observing the procedure prescribed under law. {2} 3 Section 8A of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 reads thus: 8A No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person from any Government premises on any of the grounds specified in section 4 or the recovery of the arrears of rent or the damages payable for use or occupation of such premises. 4 That, so far as the prayers made in the plaint are concerned, those do not pertain to proceedings in respect of eviction of the tenant from the Government premises, as such, bar contained in Section 8A of the Act would not come in the way of the Civil Court in proceeding with the suit. It is clear that the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit cannot be readily inferred without there being any specific provision in the enactment restraining the Civil Court from taking cognizance of a particular issue or ground. 5 In the instant case, the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is restricted only in respect of entertainment of the suit after eviction of a person from the Government premises. The application tendered by the petitioners herein has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the Corporation has already initiated proceedings for eviction of the respondent. The proceedings {3} initiated before the competent authority may be proceeded and the competent authority is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with provisions of law and the instant suit would not be an impediment in the way of the competent authority in passing the orders or in the way of the petitioners in securing execution of such orders, if any, passed by the competent authority. 6 In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. Civil Revision Application is without substance and hence stands dismissed. Pending Civil application, if any, does not survive and stand disposed of. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/cra8711