Judgment :- P.C. 1. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Palghar by which the Appeal filed by the Respondent herein being Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2010 came to be allowed and resultantly, the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1979, came to be set aside and the suit, in turn, came to be decreed and the Appellants herein were directed to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the Respondent within three months from the said date. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Appeal, in brief, can be stated thus: i. The Respondent herein filed a suit for possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu. The suit was in respect of the property consisting of agricultural survey No.11/2, 12/5/2, 16/11 and 168/6A admeasuring about 1 Acre 22 Gunthas at village Agar (Dahanu) and building bearing Village Panchayat No. 233, 324, 335 standing on the NA Survey No. 163/6 bounding Dahanu Agar main road. It was the case of the Respondent that her uncle had executed a lease deed on 1st April 1959 in favour of the Appellants above named in respect of the agricultural land as well as the dwelling house and the building. It was alleged that the Appellants had carried out unauthorized and illegal construction as well as alteration in the suit premises. The details of the alleged constructions carried out by the Appellants have been mentioned in the plaint. However, what is significant from the point of view of the present Second Appeal is that it was specifically averred in the plaint that the provisions of the Bombay House Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 ( for the brevities sake, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') were not applicable to the village Agar and therefore were not applicable to the suit premises and therefore, after issuing notice to quit, the said suit for possession was filed. The Appellants herein had filed their written statement and the contention raised was that the provisions of the Act of 1947 were applicable to the village in which the suit property was situated. ii. The Appellants herein had filed their written statement and the contention raised was that the provisions of the Act of 1947 were applicable to the village in which the suit property was situated. ii. In the light of the pleadings, the trial Court, i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu framed as many as 11 issues, amongst which, was the issue of the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1947. The trial Court recorded a finding that the said Act of 1947 was applicable in view of the fact that the premises were situated within the jurisdiction of the Dahanu Municipal Council. The trial Court, therefore, in view the said findings, dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 20th March, 1989. iii. The unsuccessful plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 010. The Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal, however, in view of the fact that the agricultural lands were involved, the Lower Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court for consideration as to whether a Reference ought to have been made to the Tenancy Court under Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. This was done by the Appellate Court by the judgment and order dated 21st July, 1993. The said order of remand came to be challenged by the Respondent herein by filing Writ Petition No. 4899 of 1993. In the said Writ Petition, the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent herein was that the Lower Appellate Court, whilst deciding the said Appeal by the judgment and order dated 21th July, 1993, has not decided the main issue which was answered by the trial Court viz. the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1947 to the suit property. A learned Single Judge of this Court (A. S.Oka, J), therefore partly allowed the Writ Petition; set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 21st July, 1993 and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for consideration in terms of the observations made in the said judgment dated 17th March, 2002. iv. A learned Single Judge of this Court (A. S.Oka, J), therefore partly allowed the Writ Petition; set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 21st July, 1993 and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for consideration in terms of the observations made in the said judgment dated 17th March, 2002. iv. The relevant excerpts of the said judgment can be culled out from paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows: "If it is held that the provisions of the said Act, 1947 are applicable to the suit property, the suit for eviction will be maintainable provided existence of any of the grounds of eviction under the said Act of 1947 is pleaded by the Petitioner." "If the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the said Act of 1947 are not applicable to the suit property,in such a case, the Appellate court will have to decide the other issues as the evidence has already been adduced by the parties on all the issues. While doing so, the Appellate court will decide as to whether a reference to the Tribunal under the said Act of 1948 will be necessary. The Appellate court will also consider whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree in respect of possession of agricultural lands let out to the respondent No.1" v. After remand, the lower Appellate Court has, as indicated above, by the impugned judgment dated 21st December, 2010 has allowed the Appeal. Whilst allowing the Appeal, the lower Appellate Court has inter alia recorded a finding as regards applicability of the Act of 1947. The Lower Appellate Court also recorded a finding as regards the grounds on which the eviction of the Appellants herein was sought namely putting up additional construction without permission of the landlord and bona fide requirement of the landlord. Both the said grounds were answered in favour of the Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent herein as well as the issue of comparative hardship was also answered in favour of the Plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court has ventured to record the said finding relying upon the observations made in the judgment dated 17th March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4899 of 1993. 3. The Lower Appellate Court has ventured to record the said finding relying upon the observations made in the judgment dated 17th March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4899 of 1993. 3. The substantial question of law, which arises for consideration is “whether the Lower Appellate Court, in the light of its finding that the Act of 1947 was applicable, could have proceeded to treat the suit as one under Section 28 of the Act of 1947 and ventured to record the findings and decree the suit ?“ 4. There cannot be any dispute in so far as the suits filed under the, Act of 1947 are concerned the jurisdiction to try the suits is vested in the Courts which have been mentioned in Section 28 of the said Act of 1947. No doubt, in a given case, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu would have the jurisdiction, but that would not permit a suit filed under the ordinary civil law for eviction to be treated as one under Section 28 of the Act of 1947 and proceed to try the same. Though, as indicated above, in the suit as filed by the Plaintiffs, by which the eviction of the Appellants herein was sought on the ground of additions and alterations as well as bona fide requirement, the Plaintiffs had pleaded that the Act of 1947 was not applicable and hence, after issuing notice, terminating the lease, the regular civil jurisdiction was invoked. 5. Though, this Court, by the judgment and order dated 17th March, 2010 had directed the Lower Appellate Court to decide the issue as regards the applicability of the Act of 1947 and had also observed that the suit for eviction would be maintainable provided existence of any of the grounds of eviction under the said Act of 1947 is pleaded by the Petitioner in it, that, in my view, would not imply that the lower Appellate Court was directed to deal with the suit as one under Section 28 of the Act of 1947 and after recording findings pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, if a case was so made out. The issue about the applicability of the Act of 1947 being a contentious issue between the parties, this Court had directed the Lower Appellate Court to record a finding and therefore, the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17th March, 2007 would only mean that after the said finding to be recorded, the Lower Appellate Court should have directed the Plaintiffs to present the plaint before the Appropriate Court taking up the suits filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1947. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Jahagirdar is therefore right in his contention that that the Lower Appellate Court, after recording finding as regards the applicability of the Act of 1947, ought to have remanded the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the suit as one filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1947. The absence of the adjudication by the trial Court acts to the prejudice of the Appellants as the Appellants would lose the stage of Appeal wherein the findings of the trial Court can be assailed. The judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court, would therefore have to be partly set aside, in so far as it records finding in respect of the grounds of eviction. 7. Both the learned counsel are agreeable that unless there is warrant to lead any further evidence, which case would have to be made out by the parties before the trial Court, no further evidence would be allowed to be led. 8. The question of law would stand answered in terms of the above. The Second Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the following directions are issued: i. The judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, insofar as it records finding in respect of the grounds made out in the plaint for eviction of the Appellants, is set aside. The finding as regards the applicability of the Bombay House Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rate Control Act of 1947 is confirmed. ii. The judgment and order of the trial court of dismissal of the suit is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court or the court taking up the suits under Section 28 of the Act of 1947, of Dahanu Taluka. The said suit would be treated as one filed under the Act of 1947, especially section 28 thereof. The said suit would be treated as one filed under the Act of 1947, especially section 28 thereof. The suit to be numbered as one under the Bombay House Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 and to be heard and finally disposed of by 15th June, 2012. iii. The trial Court would frame the issues in terms of the pleadings of the parties and the issues, based on the grounds which have been urged, would specifically be framed. iv. In so far as the evidence is concerned, observation made herein would apply, namely that unless additional evidence is warranted for which a case would have to be made out by the parties before the trial Court by filing an application to that effect, no further evidence would be permitted to be led and the trial Court would consider the evidence that is already on record. v. Parties to appear before the concerned Court on 19th March, 2012. vi. Since the suit, as originally filed, is of the year 1979, in the event the Appeal is filed against the ultimate decree that would be passed, the same also to be disposed of expeditiously by the concerned Appellate Court. 9. The Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of as such.