Order D.K. Seth, J. In this suit the real relief that has been asked for is in respect of a proceeding initiated by the defendant herein under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act. Section 15 of the said Act prohibits bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to any proceeding as contemplated therein. 2. Mr.Sen, learned counsel for the plaintiff, seeking interim order, had tried to distinguish the application of the said Act in the present case on the ground that this bar will operate only when the eviction process is initiated against an un-authorised occupation as defined in section 2 (g) of the said Act and not otherwise. According to him, on the basis of the pleadings made out in the plaint, the plaintiff has been successful in saying that the plaintiff is not in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of section 2(g). Therefore, the proceedings cannot be maintained against him. As such, the suit is maintainable and is not hit by section 15 of the said Act. He also relies on a decision in the case of M/s. Casal Wood (India) vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (AIR 2001Cal. 15) in order to contend that if any observation is made in this suit the petitioner would be deprived of his remedy and entitlement whatever he has under the law particularly under section 7 of the said Act. Therefore, the suit can be maintained. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent herein on the other hand contends that in view of section 15 of the said Act, the suit cannot be maintained and that the distinction sought to be made out is not available, since a proceeding has already been initiated. If the petitioner has any right under section 7, the same may be agitated before the appropriate forum. The question of pendency or maintainability of the suit cannot take away such right, if he has any under the law. 4. I have heard the counsel for the respective parties at length. 5. Though no application has been filed on behalf of the defendant for dismissal of the suit, but on the face of it, it appears that by reason of the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the plaint as well as the materials produced in court the suit is hit by the mischief of section 15 of the said Act. 5. Though no application has been filed on behalf of the defendant for dismissal of the suit, but on the face of it, it appears that by reason of the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the plaint as well as the materials produced in court the suit is hit by the mischief of section 15 of the said Act. The distinction that has been sought to be made out cannot be sustained. In as much as, occupation of a public premises by any person, who claims to be a tenant, if continues after the determination of the tenancy, is in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of section 2(g) of the said Act. Admittedly, on the materials it appears that the tenancy has been purported to be terminated. Whether the tenancy has been rightly terminated or not or whether there is a real termination or not these questions cannot be gone into by this court. 6. In the present case there is no dispute that the premises is a public premises in respect whereof the 1971 Act applies. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff was in authorised occupation of the public premises. It is claimed that he is still continuing its authorised occupation. In other words it claims that the occupation of the plaintiff is not an authorised occupation. Referring to various annexures Mr. Sen had sought to point out that the plaintiffs authorised occupation has not been determined. 7. In this suit the initiation of the proceedings under section 5 has since been assailed. Section 15 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court in entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of, among others, eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of a public premises or in respect of matters relating to section 7 of the said Act. As soon a proceeding is initiated under section 5 of the Act, for eviction on the ground of alleged unauthorised occupation, it becomes a proceeding within the meaning of section 15 of the said Act, by reason whereof the jurisdiction of the Civil Court becomes barred. 8. Whether the premises is a public premises, or whether the occupation is an unauthorised occupation-these are all questions related to such proceedings. Even if such questions are disputed and even if it so appears prima facie, still then these are question related to such proceedings. 8. Whether the premises is a public premises, or whether the occupation is an unauthorised occupation-these are all questions related to such proceedings. Even if such questions are disputed and even if it so appears prima facie, still then these are question related to such proceedings. The Civil Court can not go into such question fit does so then it will entertain a proceeding relating to a proceeding, the jurisdiction wherefor is barred under section 15 clause (a) of the said Act. What the Court is prevented through statutory bar, the same cannot be re-opened by it in a circuitious manner. 9. If the court undertakes such an exercise then any decision with regard thereto, even in interlocutory matters on its merit, would be entering into a question which is otherwise barred under section 15 of the said Act. Therefore, the questions raised herein cannot be gone into by this Court even to the extent as to whether the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation or not. All these questions are to be gone into in the proceedings before the appropriate authority namely, the proceedings before the appropriate authority namely, the proceeding itself before the Estate Officer. These are all defence to the petitioner which may be agitated in the said proceedings. This Court cannot enter into those questions. Therefore, the bar of section 15 is clearly attracted in the present proceeding. As such this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with this suit. 10. So far as the question of section 7 of the said Act as raised by Mr. Sen is concerned, if the petitioner has any right under the said provision he is entitled to agitate the same before the appropriate forum and take appropriate steps. This Court cannot also determine the same while deciding this suit since it has no jurisdiction with regard thereto, in view of clause (d) of section 15 of the said Act. 11. In the circumstances, the relief sought for in this application cannot be granted and is accordingly dismissed, since this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with or to entertain the suit. This order, however, will not prevent the petitioner from taking any defence in the proceedings or from agitating his right, if he has any, under section 7 of the said Act. This order, however, will not prevent the petitioner from taking any defence in the proceedings or from agitating his right, if he has any, under section 7 of the said Act. The appropriate authority shall be free to decide the question according to its own wisdom and discretion without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 12. Allegations, if any, contained in the petition are not admitted by the respondent. 13. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertaking. Appeal dismissed.