: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.626 OF 2010 Pandharinath Vithalrao Kewade & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.P. Nalawade for Appellants None for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MAY 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. The first appeal has been preferred against the decision of the trial Court dismissing the suit and allowing the application filed by the defendants for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiffs appellants have filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from their huts which they occupied at Indira Nagar Zopadpatti Rahivashi Mandal, near Vijay Nagar, Bandrekar Wadi, Jogeshwari (east), Mumbai-400060. It appears from the impugned order that during the pendency of the suit, the railways have initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and an order has been passed evicting the plaintiffs. In fact, a show-cause notice was issued on 13.6.2007 and the : 2 : eviction order has been passed by the Estate Officer on 23.11.2007. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred under the Public Premises Act. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed no error by dismissing the suit. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of the Public Premises Act have been invoked by Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 only after the present suit was filed and, therefore, the suit is maintainable. 4. From the record it appears that two suits were filed by the plaintiffs earlier being Suit Nos.1189 of 1998 and 133 of 1999. These suits were disposed of by the trial Court by accepting the statements made on behalf of Defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs would not be evicted from the suit premises without following due process of law. A public notice was thereafter issued directing the residents of the area in which the plaintiffs also reside to vacate the suit premises. It was only thereafter that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. Ad-interim relief was granted on 12.3.2007 to the plaintiffs which continued till the suit was finally heard. It is obvious therefore that although the show-cause notice was issued under the Public Premises Act in July 2007 due process of law has been followed by Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 by initiating action under the Public Premises Act. Admittedly, the suit premises are public premises and, therefore, the proceedings under the Public Premises Act have been rightly adopted. If the plaintiffs are aggrieved by any order passed under that Act, they must avail of remedies available under that Act. 5. Appeal dismissed. In view of this, Civil application No.1596 of 2010 is also dismissed. 6. In case the appellants prefer an appeal against the order passed under the Public Premises Act the same shall be decided in accordance with law.