JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the substantial question of law which reads as under: "Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff in view of the express bar put by Section 15 of the H.P. Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act?" 2. The material facts for the purpose of determination of the said question are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he is a tenant in Stall No. 18 of the Notified Area Committee, Rohru (hereafter referred to as the Stall) initially on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, subsequently reduced to Rs. 350/-per month and lastly reduced to Rs. 200/- per month as mutually agreed to between the parties, therefore, the notice dated November 17, 1988 served by the Notified Area Committee (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on the plaintiff showing the rent as Rs. 350 per month and claiming the arrears in the sum of Rs. 3,750/- being illegal, void and unwarranted in law, is not binding on the plaintiff and that the defendant may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said Stall. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the preliminary objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute in view of the provisions of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). The relevant issue which came to be framed by the learned trial Judge on this controversy is Issue No. 9 which reads as follows: "9. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred as alleged in preliminary objection No. 5? OPD." 4. After hearing the parties on this issue, the learned trial Court vide its order dated May 7, 1991 came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred to entertain the suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla by the impugned judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla by the impugned judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. This is the admitted case of the parties that the Stall in question is owned by the defendant which is a Notified Area Committee, therefore, the Stall in question is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act. 8. A perusal of the notice which has admittedly been served on the plaintiff by the defendant reveals that thereby he has been requested to pay a sum of Rs. 3,750/- on account of the arrears of rent in respect of the said Stall which has been given to him on monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The status of the plaintiff as a tenant of the Stall in question has not been disputed in the notice. The dispute, therefore, is only in respect of the rate of rent and payment of the arrears at the agreed rate. The question, therefore, is as to whether such a dispute is entertainable by a Civil Court or not? 9. Section 15 of the Act which reads as follows, contains the answer to the question: "15. Bar of jurisdiction.—No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit on proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the damages payable under sub-section (2) of that section or the costs awarded to the State Government, corporate authority or a local body as given in sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of Section 2 under sub-section (5) of Section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs." 10. A plain reading of the said Section makes it absolutely clear that the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of recovery of arrears of rent payable under subsection (1) of Section 7 as is the case in hand. A plain reading of the said Section makes it absolutely clear that the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of recovery of arrears of rent payable under subsection (1) of Section 7 as is the case in hand. Thus, the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit as in hand, in view of the question raised therein on the basis of the notice served on the plaintiff, requesting for payment of arrears of rent is barred. Both the Courts below have rightly concluded so, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.