from the suit premises. She has filed suit for possession of the business and the premises from the defendants. She has been struggling to recover possession from the defendants, since the year 1973. The earlier round of litigation had been filed in the court of Small Causes. That litigation reached up to this court. It was held that, that the agreement between the parties, being a conducting agreement, there was no relationship of licensor and licensee, between the parties, as claimed by the defendants, and the court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil court, for possession of the suit premises from the defendants. The recording of evidence in the suit was concluded on 13th February, 2014, by both the sides, participating therein. When the final arguments in the suit were to be heard, the defendants presented “Additional Draft Issues” on 3rd May, 2014, raising issues based on the claim of the defendants of being licensees, in respect of the suit premises, and the suit property being declared as “Slum” under the Maharashtra Slums Act. The Bombay City Civil court rejected the application holding that the contention of defendants that they are the licensees in respect of the suit premises, has already been decided by the Competent court, hence such issue would be barred by res-judicata. As regards the application of provisions of MRTP Act or
