( 1 ) THE defendant is the petitioner in this revision application. The respondent filed small cause suit No. 37 of 1967 in the Court of the Addl. Munsiff at Mangalore for recovery and possession of the suit house and for arrears of rent, mesne profits and interest. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was a tenant and he failed to pay the rent and therefore a notice to quit was issued against him and so entitled to recover possession of the suit house. ( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit and contended that he was not a tenant under the plaintiff. It was contended further by him that the lease was an agricultural lease and since he was a tenant of agricultural land and house the small cause court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge raised two points for consideration: - (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a monthly tenant under his vendor Julian D'souza and thereafter under himself giving proportionate monthly rent of 0-55 P. to Julian D'souza ? (2) Whether the defendant proves that he or his wife Neelu are the agricultural tenants under plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title ? ( 5 ) THE learned Judge upheld the claim of the plaintiff and passed an order for eviction and also for payment of arrears of rent. ( 6 ) IT is the correctness of the said decree, that has been challenged in this revision petition. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the small cause court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the dispute in the present case as the question was whether the lease was a building lease or an agricultural lease and the small cause court had no jurisdiction to decide the same. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in angara Kotian v. Kavu Heggadathi, 1970 2 Mys. L. J. 293. This is what has been stated in the said judgment:"it is not correct to state that in a suit for ejectment, the averments of the plaint alone must be looked into for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. What is relevant is the nature of the issues to be tried by the Court. This is what has been stated in the said judgment:"it is not correct to state that in a suit for ejectment, the averments of the plaint alone must be looked into for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. What is relevant is the nature of the issues to be tried by the Court. "jagannatha Shetty, J: while upholding the contentions of the petitioner followed the Judgment given by Santhosh, J: in CRP. No. 515 of 1966. In that case also, this Court held that the Court is entitled to look into the plea set up in the written statement for the disposal of the case and find out what is the substantial issue in the case. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondent, Mr. K. J. Shetty, contends that the judgment of this Court in the case referred to above, i. e. , Angara Kotian's case (l), has not correctly been decided and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of raizada Topanadas v. Gorakhram Gokalchand, AIR 1964 SC 1348 . has not been correctly appreciated. In my view, there is no substance in this contention. ( 9 ) ARTICLE 4 to the schedule in the Mysore Small Cause Courts Act provides that a suit for possession of an immoveable property or for recovery thereof could be entertained by a Court of Small Causes when the only substantial issue arising for decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux of time limited thereto or has been determined by a notice in accordance with law for the time being in force. It is only in this special type of case where there is only the substantial issue with regard to the determination of lease or as provided in Clause (c), that the small Cause Court is entitled to entertain $he proceedings. What is contended by Mr. Shetty is that for the purposes of finding out 'what is the substantial issue', only the allegations made in the plaint are to be looked into. In my view, this contention is devoid of force. The provisions of art. 4 (c) are similar to the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts act (1887), Schedule 2, Art. 4 (as amended in Bombay State ). In my view, this contention is devoid of force. The provisions of art. 4 (c) are similar to the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts act (1887), Schedule 2, Art. 4 (as amended in Bombay State ). Dealing with this question, the High Court of Bombay in bai Hari v. Nathubhai Parbhubhai, AIR 1939 Bom 353. held as follows:"'substantial issue' means an issue arising not only upon the allegations in the plaint but upon those allegations combined with the allegations made in the written statement. There can be no question at issue unless there is a difference between the parties, and in order to determine what the issue is, it is necessary to consider the allegations of both sides. A substantial issue is an issue which goes to the root of the case, other issues being merely incidental or concerned with matters of detail. "in a suit to recover possession and rent on the strength of a lease, the question of the hollowness of the lease is a matter which goes to the root of the whole case. If the lease is hollow then the defendant is not a tenant, and the plaintiff cannot succeed upon the basis of tenancy. Hence the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Similar view is also expressed in premachand Mahasukhbhal v. Chamanlal Ranchhoddas, AIR. 1945 Bom. 470. In that case this is what Rajadhyaksha, J: has stated:"article 4 makes it clear that where there is any substantial issue arising for decision other than the determination of lease by efflux of time or by notice under S. 111 (h), T. P. Act, the Court of Small Causes would have no jurisdiction to hear a suit for possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of any interest in such property. Whether the question at issue is substantial or not must be determined having regard to the averments made in the plaint and the contentions taken in the written statement. In a suit by the landlord for possession of property leased an issue raised by the tenant that the landlord was not entitled to possession by reason of S. 11, Bombay Rent Restriction Act, is a substantial issue because if it succeeds it would defeat the plaintiff's suit and therefore when such an issue is raised the Small Cause Court would have no jurisdiction to hear the suit. "in my view, similar is the position in the present case. The defendant has raised a contention that the lease is an agricultural lease and since it is an agricultural lease, the Civil Court would have no jurisdction to entertain the suit at all and the claim is barred having regard to the mysore Land Reforms Act. Just as it was said in the Bombay case premchand Mahasukhbhal's case (4), the plea raised that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act would apply, would be a substantial issue and the Court could have no jurisdiction to try the suit, similarly in the present case also the plea raised is that the Mysore Land Reforms Act is applicable and since the Mysore Land Reforms Act is applicable, the entire proceeding of the Civil Court is one without jurisdiction, the substantial issue in the suit is the nature of the lease. So the suit is excluded from the purview of the Small Cause Courts Act. In that view of the matter, having regard to the pronouncement to which I have made a reference which would give full support to the view taken in the case Angara kotian (1), I am of the view that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision application is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside; and the court below is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court as provided under S. 60 of the Small Cause Courts Act. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .