A.K. MATHUR, J.—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:— ^^5- vk;k nkok ifCyd izhfelst ls csn[kyh jksdus ds fy;s nkok fd;k tks ifCyd izhfelst % bZfDoku vkWQ vuvFkkWjkbZt vksdw is.M~l % ,DV ds rgr okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA ---- izfroknh 6- vk;k jktLFkku ijek.kq fo|qr ?kj ijek.kq mtkZ mRiknu ls lEcfU/kr gksus ls ln~Hkkouk ls fy;s tkus ls nkok gktk pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA ---- izfroknh 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Now, the only argument raised before me is regarding issue No, 5. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. As 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). 10. 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). 10. I have heard learned- counsel for the parties and ( think that s. 15 decides the fate of this case. 11. A perusal of section 15 clearly shows that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit regarding eviction of a person who is unautho-lisedly occupying public premises. It is not, disputed that the present Quarter is not public premise. Since it is a public premise, as it is a Quarter of the Atomic Energy Department of the Central Government and that the notice has been issued by the authorities to the plaintiff to vacate these premises, therefore, in terms of definition of the unauthorised occupation, which clearly says that if any person has been prevented or he has been directed to vacate the premises for any reason whatsoever and if he still continued in these premises, then he shall be in unauthorised, occupation, in the present case, he had been directed to vacate the premises. Therefore, the continuation by the plaintiff in those premises, is unauthorised. When both these conditions, i.e. that the premises being public premises and the occupation being unauthorised, is satisfied then Section 15 automatically comes in play. Simply because the plaintiff has filed suit u/s 9 of C.P.C, it would not mean that the jurisdiction of the estate officer under this Act ousted. Section 9 C.P.C. also says that the civil court will not have a jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit, if expressly prohibited under any Act. In the present case Section 15 specifically prohibits that no civil court shall entertain any suit for eviction of the unauthorised occupation from the public premises. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has not correctly decided issue No. 5. 12. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Ranulal v. Daudas (2). In that case also it has been clearly held that : "Once a suit is validly commenced in any court, a subsequent change in the matter of jurisdiction of the court trying it, unless of course there is a clear provision of law, which robs the court of its jurisdiction to decide such a case expressly or by necessary implication." 13. Similarly in firm of Illuri Subbayya Chettys case (supra) it has been observed that:— "In dealing with the question whether Civil Courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not, It is necessary to bear in mind the fact that there is general presumption that there must be a remedy in the ordinary civil courts to a citizen claiming that an amount has been recovered from him illegally and that such a remedy can be held to be barred only on very clear and unmistakable indications to the contrary. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain civil causes will not be assumed unless the relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect, or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature. The mere fact that a special statute provides for certain remedies may not by itself necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to deal with a case brought before it in respect of some of the matters covered by the said statute " 14. Thus, from the perusal of both these authorities, also it clearly transpires that wherever the civil suit has been entertained than if there is a prohibition contained in the Act, then the jurisdiction of civil court will automatically cease in terms of the provisions of the particular Act, as in the present case s. 15 of the Act. Thus, the view taken by the learned Magistrate, does not appear to be correct. 15. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part and the decision under issue No. 5 is set aside. It is held that the civil court, in the present case, has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 16. No order as to costs.