JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. Heard Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. No one has remained present on behalf of the respondents. 2. Under challenge in the present petition is the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Valsad in application below Ex. 44 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 55 of 1999 whereby the application filed under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. 3. The submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is best appreciated from the order dated 23.08.2013 passed in the present petition which reads as under:- "Heard Mr. Pathik M. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge, Valsad, has not taken into consideration the aspect that the prayers made in the suit by the original plaintiff constitute mis-joinder of causes of action that touches upon the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions of Section-28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Parshottamdas Patel and others Vs. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad, (1984) 1 GLR 156 , inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Court would extend to entertaining or trying any suit or proceedings between the landlord and the tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of rented premises, and not any other issue. Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief, returnable on 19.09.2013. By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 55/1999, shall remain stayed till then." 4. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff who was the tenant in the suit filed by the respondents has drawn my attention to the plaint at Annexure 'A'. The respondents original plaintiffs filed a suit before the Civil Judge, (J.D.) at Valsad. The suit was filed for two properties which have been shown in Schedule 1 and 2 respectively to the plaint. Admittedly, the two properties are different. The respondents original plaintiffs filed a suit before the Civil Judge, (J.D.) at Valsad. The suit was filed for two properties which have been shown in Schedule 1 and 2 respectively to the plaint. Admittedly, the two properties are different. The title of the suit reads that the plaintiffs had approached the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) for eviction of the property at Schedule 1. It is the case of the original plaintiffs respondents herein that the same was rented out to the petitioners in the year 1978 for a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. It was the case of the plaintiffs respondents herein that there is breach of the terms of the payment of rent and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'). 4.1 The other relief as the title suggests is regarding the property at Schedule 2 for which the prayer is that since the valuation of that property is above Rs.2 lakhs, the petitioners are illegally occupying the said property and therefore the petitioners be directed to vacate the property at Schedule 2 because they are illegal occupants thereof. 5. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The reading of the application below Ex. 44 would suggest that it was the case of the defendant that two issues were framed by the trial Court which read as under:- "7-A Whether suit as frame is not maintainable because of misjoinder of causes of action? 7-B Whether the Court has got jurisdiction to try and decide the suit?" 5.1 It was the case of the defendant that as far as the relief regarding the property at Schedule 2 was concerned, since the suit was not competent in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), issues as suggested be decided as preliminary issues. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge observed that looking to the provisions of Section 28 of the Rent Act, even though what was prayed for with regard to Schedule 2 property was evicting the defendant, he being an illegal occupant, it fell within the realm of the Rent Act. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge observed that looking to the provisions of Section 28 of the Rent Act, even though what was prayed for with regard to Schedule 2 property was evicting the defendant, he being an illegal occupant, it fell within the realm of the Rent Act. Relying on Section 28 of the Rent Act, the Court held that since it was a suit or a proceeding between a landlord and a tenant, the jurisdiction of the rent court was not barred and therefore there was no need to decide the issue as a preliminary issue. 6. Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Parshottamdas Patel and Others vs. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad, (1984) 1 GLR 156 more particularly paragraphs 29 to 33. It is the contention of learned advocate that when there is a suit claiming possession of premises on the ground of the occupier being an illegal occupant that cannot be compared to the one as being a claimant under the provisions of the Rent Act and therefore a rent court cannot have jurisdiction to decide the claim as far as Schedule 2 property is concerned. It was in light of this position of law that Mr. Acharya contended that there was a misjoinder of causes of action. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and having perused the copy of the plaint, it is evident that as far as relief concerning the properties of Schedule 2 is concerned, averments in the plaint suggest that it is the case of the plaintiffs that the petitioners defendants are illegally using the property and is occupying the same and is causing damage to the property. It is only when it comes to the property at Schedule 1 that it is the case of the plaintiffs respondents herein that since that property is tenanted to the petitioners and the petitioners are in arrears of rent, eviction of the property as a tenant be granted. 8. Admittedly, therefore it is only in relation to the property at Schedule 1 of the plaint that a relationship of a landlord and a tenant in accordance with Section 28 of the Rent Act is established. 8. Admittedly, therefore it is only in relation to the property at Schedule 1 of the plaint that a relationship of a landlord and a tenant in accordance with Section 28 of the Rent Act is established. As far as property at Schedule 2 is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the petitioners are in illegal occupation thereof. Unauthorized occupation would not render the colour of the relationship of a landlord and the tenant and therefore as far as prayer of the plaintiffs with regard to the property at Schedule 2 is concerned, evidently the suit before the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Valsad is barred. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 02.01.2013 passed below Ex. 44 in Regular Civil Suit No. 55 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside and the learned trial judge is directed to decide the issues 9(a) and 9 (b) as preliminary issues. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.