ORDER By this petition in revision the defendant petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order of the trial Court, by which it refused to frame certain additional issues for trial. 2. The suit out of which this petition arises was brought by the plaintiff-opp. party, for possession of a house and damages for use and occupation, on the ground that the house was let out on rent for a period of one year (ending on 30-4-1951) by the plaintiff to the defendant but the defendant failed to vacate on the expiry of that period and in spite of a notice having been served on him asking to vacate. There was a previous suit for the same but on appeal it was dismissed as pre-mature by this court. 3. The defendant opposed the suit on several grounds and also claimed a .set-off in respect of certain expenses incurred by him for repairs and the costs awarded to him in the previous suit, but the pleadings as they stand at present do not fall within Sec. 108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, nor do they relate to a period after the Transfer of Property Act was applied to this territory. I shall refer to these pleas as I consider each of them. The trial Court refused to frame issues as regards the claim in set-off until court-fee for the same was paid, and in that the learned trial Judge was quite right, and the same point was also not pressed before me by the petitioner. 4. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues : 1. Was there any agreement between the parties ? If so, what are the terms ? 2. Has the defendant been occupying the two-storied house on plot No. 10, Gimson Road even after the expiry of the terms of the lease and is he, therefore, liable to pay damage to the plaintiff ? 3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for this suit against the defendant ? 4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled in this suit ? 5. The first issue is not specific and fails to give an idea of the agreement set up and by which party it was set up. 3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for this suit against the defendant ? 4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled in this suit ? 5. The first issue is not specific and fails to give an idea of the agreement set up and by which party it was set up. That issue obviously arose out of the plea of defendant which was that at the time of letting out the house to the defendant, there was a stipulation that the lease would be renewed year after year. It is not clear whether this stipulation is embodied in the deed by which the lease was given or finds place in a separate deed or is oral. It was necessary to know this, because, what will be the effect of such an agreement even if proved will depend on whether it was oral or by deed and whether the deed was registered or unregistered. In this connection it might be mentioned, that the duty of framing issues rests on the court. It follows therefore that the trial Judge should insist on clear pleadings, and if the pleadings on any point are vagues, he should order the party concerned to clear it. The object of framing issues, is to direct the attention of the parties to the main questions of fact necessary to be decided and it is difficult to see how this can be achieved, or how the duty of raising issues which has been laid under the law on the court can be discharged, if the pleadings are vague or do not give the necessary details. 6. In this connection it might also be observed that the framing of issues is a very important part in the trial of a suit. In fact by framing the issues the court announces its decision that the result of the suit depends on those points only and the parties would be debarred from adducing evidence on any other point or points. In this part pleadings have been far from satisfactory, and it has been noticed that parties were allowed to deviate from the pleadings at the stage of evidence and lead evidence to prove matters which were never pleaded. This is not permissible in any system of justice, and the Civil Procedure Code definitely does not allow it. In this part pleadings have been far from satisfactory, and it has been noticed that parties were allowed to deviate from the pleadings at the stage of evidence and lead evidence to prove matters which were never pleaded. This is not permissible in any system of justice, and the Civil Procedure Code definitely does not allow it. It is clear that such a course is objectionable from more than one point of view and if permitted it will more often result in injustice than justice. The courts in this territory must firmly set their face, against this practice and see that this evil is eradicated in the interest of proper administration of justice. Rule 1 Order 14 C.P.C. and the following rules, clearly indicate how and on what points issues should be framed. There is ample case law also available on the point which will be found quoted in the commentaries in the Civil Procedure Code by authors like Mulla, or Sircar or that published by the All India Reporter. Thus the importance of proper pleadings and raising of proper issues will be self-evident, and it may not be out of place to make the point further clear by giving an illustration. Just as a carpenter cannot turn out good furniture, unless he first secures good material and tools, a court will find it difficult to give a proper trial and a proper decision in the absence of necessary pleadings and issues on which depends the adducing of necessary evidence. 7. In the present case, I find that even the agreement of lease was not filed though the suit was based on it. Order 7 Rule 14 makes it incumbent that such documents must be filed with the plaint. Again the court should examine them before framing issues as laid down under Order 14 Rule 4. 8. I need not dwell on this subject any further and must part with it in the hope that every Judge will consider it his first duty to see that these matters are improved. It is needless to say that this can be achieved only if the provisions of the Procedure Code are studied, followed and enforced. 9. 8. I need not dwell on this subject any further and must part with it in the hope that every Judge will consider it his first duty to see that these matters are improved. It is needless to say that this can be achieved only if the provisions of the Procedure Code are studied, followed and enforced. 9. It will be thus clear that the issue on this point should have been somewhat like this : Was it agreed between the parties at the time the house was first let out to the defendant that the lease will be renewed from year to year on the expiry of the original period of one year ? If so, what is its effect ? 10. It is an admitted fact, that the defendant has continued in possession, after the expiry of the original period of one year and as such it was not necessary to be put in issue No. 2. What was necessary was, whether plaintiff would be entitled to damages for use and occupation for the period after the original period of one year and if so at what rate. The decision of the question of quantum of damages generally depends upon the evidence as regards the prevailing rents in the locality at the time for similar accommodation, and therefore it is necessary to put the question of the rate in the issue, so that the attention of the parties might be sufficiently drawn to the necessity of leading evidence on that point. Again the question of damages and ejectment will have to be considered in the light of the finding on issue 1; because it will have to be found if a contract as alleged by the defendant has been established or not. If established whether under the law, that gives defendant any right. 11. Issue No. 3 was also redundant in this case as on the pleadings of the parties the decision of the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue or not, will depend on the findings on the issues, that correctly arise in the case, and would thus be covered by the last issue framed by the learned trial Judge. 12. The defendant raised a plea that the plaintiff was not the owner of the House, and could not therefore bring this suit. 12. The defendant raised a plea that the plaintiff was not the owner of the House, and could not therefore bring this suit. But it was not denied by him that he took the house on lease from the plaintiff i.e. it was admitted that the plaintiff was his landlord. Such a person can certainly bring a suit for ejectment and rent or damages for use and occupation. The estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act would operate against him. This principle has been well-settled and consistently followed by decisions of courts in England as well as in India. It will be sufficiently illustrated by the remarks to be found quoted in the Law of Evidence by S.C. Sarkar (9th Edition) at page 984, some of which are reproduced below :- "In an action for use and occupation, it ought not to be permitted to a tenant, who occupies land by the license of another, to call upon the other to show title under which he let the land. This is not a mere technical rule, but is founded in public convenience and policy, (per Lord Kenyan in Coake v. Loxley, (1792) 2 R. R. 521)." "The principle is that a tenant shall not contest his landlords title, on the contrary, it is his duty to defend it. If he objects to such title, let him go out of possession (per Tindal, C.J. in Deo d. Manton v. Austin, (1832) 9 Bing. 41)". "The security of landlords would be infinitely endangered if such a proceeding were allowed, (per Lord Ellenborough in Balls v. Westwood, (1809) 2 Camp. 12)". (See also Ketu Das v. Surendra Nath Sinha, 7 Cal WN 596; Chandrika Prasada v. B.B. and C. I. Rly. Co. 39 Cal. WN 552 : 154 Ind Cas 945 : (AIR 1935 PC 59) John Agabog Vertannes v. James Colder Robinson, AIR 1927 PC 151). 13. It was thus clearly not necessary to frame an issue on this point. But issues on the questions of the date of commencement of the tenancy and the necessity of a notice of ejectment and its validity were clearly necessary in view of the pleadings and the questions involved as already seen. 14. 13. It was thus clearly not necessary to frame an issue on this point. But issues on the questions of the date of commencement of the tenancy and the necessity of a notice of ejectment and its validity were clearly necessary in view of the pleadings and the questions involved as already seen. 14. I may also point out that it is desirable to frame an issue about the prayer of instalments, and also about the compensatory costs under Section 35-A of the C.P.C. so that the attention of the parties may be rivetted on those points and they may not be lost sight of at time of deciding the case. 15. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Sub-Judge refusing to frame further issues to the extent indicated above, and direct that he shall now frame the necessary issues in advertence to the above remarks, and then proceed to try the suit. In the circumstances, costs incurred in this revision proceeding shall be costs in the suit. Case remanded.