POOVANI POOJARY Vs. NARAYANA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S.I 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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-1filed 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 1-10-71 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 not sublet the building; that he has made improvements to it to the extent of Rs. 600 and what has been let out to him is an agricultural holding. He also contended that he is an agricultural labourer.

(3.) On those contentions, the trial Court framed as many as 7 issues, out of which only issue No.3 is relevant for my purpose. It reads : "Does defendent-1 prove that the suit premises is an agricultural holding and that therefore he cannot be evicted?" 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. S. 133(1) of the said Act so far as it is relevant provides :