co-operative I~earned counsel for-the respondent took a preli- Ho1<sing Society minary objection, founded on the provisions of sec- r,ta. tion 28 of the Bombay Act, that the City Civil Court v. bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, for that section D.0 · Patel. clearly states that in Greater Bombay the Court of Das J. Small Cayses alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of that Part of the Act applied and to decide any application made under the Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act and no other Court should have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding or to deal with such claim or question. If, as contended for by the appellant, the Act does not apply to the premises, then section 28 which is an integral part of the Act and takes away the jurisdiction of all Courts other than the Small Causes Court in Greater Bombay cannot obviously be invoked by the respondent. The crucial point, therefore, in order to determine the question of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain the suit, is to ascertain whether, in view of section 4 of the Act, the Act applies to the premises at all: If it does, the City Civil Court bas no jurisdiction but if it does not, then it has such jurisdiction. 'rbe question at once arises as to who is to decide this · point in controversy. It is well settled that a Civil Court bas inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction, although, as a result of its enquiry, it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the suit. Accordingly we think, iu agreement with the High Court, that this preliminary objection is not well founded in principle or on authority and sbonld be rejected.
