1. This petition under S. 115 of the Civil P.C is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Buntwal, whereby he deleted one of the issues raised in the suit.
2. The relevant facts are these :
Respondent 1 filed a suit for recovery of possession of a property described in the plaint as shop building The said building, according to the plaint averments , was leased to defendant 1 under a rent bond dated 1-10-1971 on a monthly rent bond dated 1-10-1971 on a monthly rental of Rs. 7/- It is said that contrary to the terms of the rent bond, defendant 1 has sublet the said shop to defendant 2. Defendant 1 while resisting the suit has , inter alia , contended that he has no not sublet the building ; that he has made improvements to it to the extent of Rs.600/- and what has been let out of him is an agricultural holding . He also contended that he is an agricultural labourer.
3. On these contentions, the trail court framed as many as 7 issues. Out of which only issue No. 3 is relevant for my purpose. It reads ;
'Does defendant No. 1 prove that the suit premises is an agricultural holding and that therefore he cannot be evicted?'
4. Interrupting the narration, it is necessary to state that the decision on this issue by the Civil court is totally barred after coming into force of the Karnataka act No 27 of 1976, further amending S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 133(1) of the said Act so far as it is relevant provides:
'133. Suits , proceedings etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal-(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force-
(i) No Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or authority shall , in any suit, case or proceeding concerning a land, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1974;
(ii) Such Court of Officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision.'
5. It is clear from the above provisions, that after the above provisions came into force, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction agricultural land or not. Such question shall be referred to the Tribunal for decision. The above provisions of course were not in the Statute book when the trial Court framed the issues. However , it makes little difference on the problem before me . In the trial court , the Plaintiff came forward with an application to delete issue No. 3 on the ground that it does not arise out of the averments in the pleadings. That application was opposed by defendant 1 . The trial Court, however, acceded to the request of the plaintiff and deleted the said issue by observing that it is unwarranted for the purpose of deciding the real question involved in the suit.
6. Challenging the validity of the deletion, defendant 1 has preferred the revision petition.
7.Sri P. Ganapathy Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that once defendant 1 pleaded that the suit premises is an agricultural land which averment is not admitted by the plaintiff the issue relating to the nature of premises does arise and the Court shall frame an issue upon that material proposition under O. XIV, R. '1' of the Civil P.C. He also said that the trial Court having referred to the matter in controversy, has already framed issue No. 3 and its deletion now is illegal and without jurisdiction.
8. It is true that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. There cannot be any dispute on this proposition. But an issue relating to the agricultural tenancy pleaded by one party to the suit should not be blindly framed by the Civil Court . So also an issue relating to the nature of the property in dispute as to whether it is or is not an agricultural land should not be lightly framed . Before settling such issue the court should exercise a little more caution and look for particulars on the plea of tenancy or on the nature of the premises in dispute . The Court also should guard itself against the attempt or design of a party to delay unnecessarily the proceedings against him. In Krishnaji Ramachandra v. Canara Bank , Hubli, (1975) 2 Kant LJ 395, it was observed that the Court should avoid to frame an issue on vague allegations or bald statement. If the defendant wants to plead that he is a tenant in respect of land as defined under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, he must as far as possible give the particulars of his tenancy and the nature of the land in his occupation.
9. in the present case, all that defendant 1 has stated is that what has been let out to him is an agricultural holding, although in para. 4 of his written statement, he has only referred to the suit building. He has not given any particulars of the land appertaining to the suit building . he has also not stated whether he is in possession of any land apart from the building in question. Obviously the could not have given any such particulars, reply thereto exchanged between the parties before the institution of the suit. It leads to an inevitable inference, as the trial court has rightly observed that what was leased to defendant 1 was only a building and nothing else . The trial court was, therefore , justified in deleting issue No. 3 I find no error of jurisdiction vitiating the said order.
10. In the result , the revision petition fails and is dismissed , but without an order as to costs,
11. Revision dismissed.