( 1 ) THIS revision petition under S. 18 of the Mysore Small Causes Court act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1969 passed in SCS No. 253/1967 on the file of the Munsiff, Puttur, South Kanara, directing the petitioner herein (the defendant in that suit) to pay Rs. 71-53 towards arrears of rent and future mesne profits at the rale of Rs. 3 per month with interest at 5 per cent and aiso to hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the respondent-plaintiff within two months. ( 2 ) THE suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and future mesne profits at Rs. 3 per month with interest at 5 per cent and also for recovery of possession of the suit house. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that the petitioner was in possession of the suit house as a tenant under him and tne agreed rent was Rs. 3 per month, that he was in arrears ot rent from January 1966, that in spite of a demand notice issued to him on 22-10-1967 to pay up all the arrears of rent and hand over vacant possession of the suit house by the end of November 1967 he did not comply with it, and that therefore he was obliged to file the suit. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant resisted the suit and inter alia contended that he was not a tenant under the respondent. He further pleaded that the suit house belongs to M/s. Muthappa Gowda and Monnappa gowda, that ho was occupying the house as a tenant under them, and that his tenancy was evidenced by a 'sthala badige chit' executed by him in their favour agreeing to any a rent of Rs. 30. ( 4 ) IN view of the stand taken by the petitioner-defendant, the question that arose for decision before the lower court was whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit house as a tenant under the respondent-plaintiff. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Munsiff, on a consideration of the evidence relating to the said question, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the suit house as a tenant under the respondent. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Munsiff, on a consideration of the evidence relating to the said question, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the suit house as a tenant under the respondent. He also held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and was liable to pay future mesne profits and accordingly, he decreed the the suit. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. ( 5 ) IT was mainly contended by Sri Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the suit in question is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes and that that Court was not therefore competent to try that suit in view of S. 8 read with Art. 4 of the Schedule to the Act. ( 6 ) S. 8 and Art. 4 cf the schedule to the Act on which Sri Gopalakrishna setty depended while advancing that contention read thus:"sec. 8: Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes: A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small causes. Art. 4: A suit for the possession of the immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property but not including a suit for ejectment where- (a) the prorerty has been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied by a written instrument or orally, and (b) the court of Small Causes would be competent to take cognizance of a suit for the rent of the property and (c) the only substantial issue arising for the decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux of time limited therby or has been determined by a notice in accordance with the law for the time being in force in respect of such lease, or the permission to occupy has been withdrawn. " ( 7 ) ON a reading" of the above provisions, it is clear that the contention of Sri Gopalakrishna Setty is well founded. " ( 7 ) ON a reading" of the above provisions, it is clear that the contention of Sri Gopalakrishna Setty is well founded. Clause (c) of Art. 4 of the Schedule provides that a Court ot Small Causes can take cognizance of a suit for possession of immoveable property only where a substantial issue arises as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux of time limited thereby or has been determined by a notice in accordance with law for the time being in force in respect of such lease or permission to occupy has been withdrawn. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the substantial issue that arose for consideration before the lower court was whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit house as a tenant under the respondent. The question whether the lease had been determined by efflux of time limited thereby or had been determined by a notice in accordance with law for the time being in force in respect of such lease or permission to occupy had been withdrawn, it is clear from the pleadings in the suit, did not arise for consideration. It is, therefore abundantly clear that the issue which arose for decision before the lower court and which it decided was one which is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes in view of the provisions contained in S. 8 and Art. 4 of the schedule to the Act. ( 9 ) INDEED, Sri Shivashankar Bhat learned counsel for the respondent, did not dispute this legal position. However, he contended that the question whether the Court of Small Causes was competent to take cognizance of the suit was decided as a preliminary issue long before the judgment and decree under revision were passed and that that decision became final and it was not open to the petitioner to impeach the correctness of that finding in revision. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, there is no merit in the contention advanced by sri Shivashankar Bhat The provisions of S. 8 and Art. 4 of the schedule to the Act appear to have not been brought to the notice of the learned munsiff while deciding that question. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, there is no merit in the contention advanced by sri Shivashankar Bhat The provisions of S. 8 and Art. 4 of the schedule to the Act appear to have not been brought to the notice of the learned munsiff while deciding that question. A suit of this kind being excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes, what the learned munsiff should have done was to return the plaint under S. 16 of the Act for presentation to a proper court after the petitioner filed his written statement; but, without doing that, he took cognizance of the suit and proceeded to try it as a small cause suit, which was wholly impermissible. The judgment and decree thus passed by a Court not competent to take cognizance of the suit shall have to be set aside. ( 11 ) IN the result and for the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the court below are set aside, and the court below is directed to return under S. 16 of the act the plaint to the respondent for presentation to the proper court In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .