BHAKTHAVATSALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is Defendant's Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 26. 11. 2005 made in O. S. No. 1790/2001 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. ( 2 ) THE appellants/defendants are represented by Sri S. A. Khuddus. The Respondent/plaintiff is represented by Sri M. N. Balakrishna. ( 3 ) HEARD arguments ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under: the Respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for ejectment and recovery of damages against the defendants. The Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. In view of the pleading on record, the Trial Judge framed certain issues. The parties went to trial. On the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the Learned Trial Judge answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative in favour of the Plaintiff and answered issue No. 3 as did not survive for consideration and ultimately decreed the Suit in part, directing the Defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. This is impugned in this appeal. ( 5 ) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/defendants submitted that in view of section 2 (e) and 16 of the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act'), the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, as the property belongs to the Wakf Institution. Inspite of such a contention taken by the defendant, the Trial Court has decreed the Suit, and therefore the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction, and therefore the same shall be set aside. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff contended that though the subject matter of the Suit is a Wakf property, the same is not managed by the State Wakf board, and there is no merit in the contention of the Appellant/defendant. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff contended that though the subject matter of the Suit is a Wakf property, the same is not managed by the State Wakf board, and there is no merit in the contention of the Appellant/defendant. ( 7 ) SECTION 2 (e) of the Act reads as under:"public premises" means any premises belonging to or allotted to State Government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of- (i) a local authority, (ii) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1955 (Central Act 1 of 1956) in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the State government or any Company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of the said Act) for the first mentioned company. (iii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956) established by or under a Central Act or a State Act and owned or controlled by the State government;and (iv) a muzrai institution or religious or charitable institution under the management of the State government, (v) a wakf registered with the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, (vi) the State Government and the Government of Andhra Pradesh jointly, and under the management or administrative control of the Tungabhadra Board constituted by the government of India under Sub Section (4) of Section 66 of the Andhra State Act, 1953 (Central act 30 of 1953), (vii) a University established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976) or the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963, (Karnataka Act22 of 1963 ). ( 8 ) SINCE the subject matter of the property belongs to Wakf Institution, it falls within the definition of "public premises". ( 8 ) SINCE the subject matter of the property belongs to Wakf Institution, it falls within the definition of "public premises". Section 16 of the Act says that no Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in un-authorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of arrears of rent payable under Sub-Section (1) of the Section 7 or the damages payable under Sub-Section (2) of that Section or the costs awarded to the State Government or the local authorities or the corporate authority under Sub- section (5) of Section 10 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, I pass the following order: the Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 26. 11. 2005 made in o. S. No. 1790/2001 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, are set aside, with liberty to the Respondent/plaintiff to take appropriate course of action in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .