R. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-79 passed by the VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 5a/78, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :- it is not disputed that the plaintiff was granted lease of the suit-plot situated in Pologround in the Industrial Area, Indore by a registered lease-deed dated 9-10-63 for a period of 30 years by the defendant-State Government on a monthly rent of Rs. 196/-, but the plaintiff has been dispossessed of the suit plot at the instance of the defendant on 9-12-75. ( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had started his factory on the suit plot but due to some controversy raised by the Excise Department, he had to close the factory for sometime and that he had committed no breach of any condition of the lease but the defendants without duly terminating the lease of the plaintiff have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff on 9-12-75. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the instant suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits. ( 4 ) THE defendants resisted the suit and took a preliminary objection in the written-statement as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was evicted from the suit premises by order of a competent authority under the M. P. Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952' ). The notice dated 16-6-73 issued by the Assistant Director of Industries and competent authority, Indore under Section 3 of the Act of 1952, directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of service of the notice, has been filed by the defendants as Appendix No. 4. The order of the Collector dated 27-11-75 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the order requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises, as contained in the aforesaid Notice dated 16-6-73, has also been filed by the defendants as Appendix No. 7. The order of the Collector dated 27-11-75 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the order requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises, as contained in the aforesaid Notice dated 16-6-73, has also been filed by the defendants as Appendix No. 7. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed several issues including the Issue as to whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the instant suit. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing parties on the said preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, the learned trial Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the repealing Act called the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1974') which has repealed the Act of 1952. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Act of 1952 was repealed by the Adhiniyam of 1974 but under Sec. 20 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 anything done or any action taken (including Rules or orders made, notices issued, evictions ordered or effected, damages assessed, rents or damages or costs recovered and proceedings initiated) or purported to have been done or taken under the Act of 1952, is deemed to be as valid and effective as if such thing or action was done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1974. Accordingly, the notice dated 16-6-73 issued by the Assistant Director of Industries and Competent Authority, Indore under Sec. 3 of the Act of 1952 directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the service of notice (Appendix No. 14) is referable to corresponding Section 5 of the Adhiniyam of 1974, which provides for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises. Apparently unauthorised occupation is the jurisdictional fact which must pre-exist for any action by Competent Authority for eviction of the person in occupation of the public premises. Apparently unauthorised occupation is the jurisdictional fact which must pre-exist for any action by Competent Authority for eviction of the person in occupation of the public premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined in the Adhiniyam of 1974 as under -"unauthorised Occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and include 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 premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. " ( 8 ) IN the instant case the premises in question were in occupation of the appellant under a lease of 30 years granted by the defendant State Government on 9-10-63 and it is not disputed that the period of lease has still not expired. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was allowed to occupy the premises under the said lease, which has not been determined on any ground, whatsoever. In the circumstances, the occupation of the premises by the appellant could not be termed as 'unauthorised occupation'. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the power of the competent authority under the Act of 1952 as well as the Adhiniyam of 1974 is limited to eviction of the persons in unauthorised occupation of government premises and that every order made by a competent authority or appellate authority under the Act of 1952 or the Adhiniyam of 1974 cannot be called in question in any original suit and there is bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 6 of the Act of 1952 or under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 in respect of eviction of any person who is in an unauthorised occupation of any Government Premises. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since neither the period of lease granted to the appellant in respect of the premises has expired nor the lease has been terminated by the Government the appellant cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation of the premises and the competent authority had no power under the Act of 1952 or the Adhiniyam of 1974 to evict a person who is not in unauthorised occupation. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of order of eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises has been barred by Section 15 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 but the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred in respect of eviction of any person who is not in unauthorised occupation of public premises. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the moot question whether or not the appellant-plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation. ( 11 ) IT has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the defendants have not terminated the lease by any lawful notice. It has been submitted that no such notice terminating the lease has been placed on record by the defendants. It has been submitted that the notice Appendix No. 4 dated 16-6-73 aforesaid refers to an earlier notice No. INDIO/bf/7/70/578 dated 22-1-71, which has also not been placed on record and nothing is stated in relation to that notice so as to raise an inference that the lease had been terminated. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has reiterated the contention raised in his memo of appeal that the learned lower Court ought to have considered that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to see whether the statutory authorities have acted within the powers conferred upon them by the statute or have exceeded in their powers while so acting and for that purpose the civil Court has the power to examine the proceedings. ( 13 ) HAVING heard learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal should be allowed. ( 13 ) HAVING heard learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal should be allowed. The learned lower Court ought to have examined the question whether the impugned order of eviction passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1952 or the Adhiniyam of 1974. An order of eviction made by competent authority in relation to unauthorised occupation of public premises can be said to be an order made under the Act of 1952 and as such, it is necessary to examine the question whether the appellant-plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation as discussed above. An order of eviction made in relation to a person who is not in unauthorised occupation of the premises, cannot be called an order made under the Act of 1952, and would be an illegal order made, de hors the Act of 1952 which, therefore, cannot bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit. ( 14 ) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, has submitted that for a fresh decision of the case, an opportunity should be given to the defendants to file necessary documents in proof of the fact that the lease granted to the plaintiff had been duly terminated by the State Government and the plaintiff had, therefore, become an unauthorised occupant in relation to the premises in suit. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances, I deem it fit to remand this case after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below for deciding the question of jurisdiction afresh after affording opportunity to the defendants to place further material on record to show that the lease had been duly terminated and consequently the plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation of the premises in suit before he was evicted by order of the competent authority. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction afresh according to law in the light of the observations aforesaid after affording opportunity to the parties to place on record such documents as may have bearing on the question of jurisdiction. ( 17 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16-4-1990. ( 17 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16-4-1990. There shall, however, be no order as to cost of this appeal, which shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Appeal allowed. .