( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the plaintiff in OS. 217 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Coondapur, S. K. , raises the question whether the issue relating to the applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), has to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act or by the Civil Court. ( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way : The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a tiled house bearing No. 1-93 of Koteshwar Panchayat and situated in sy. No. 243/4 classified in the revenue records as Tunja' of the extent of 27 cents. The plaintiff's case was that his predecessor-in-interest had leased the suit property by a karar d/. 4-4-1966, under which the defendant took the building for his business, agreeing to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 9. The plaintiff who purchased the property under a sale deed d/. 30-3-1970 after issue of a registered notice brought the suit for possession, arrears of rent and future mesne profits. ( 3 ) THE defendant contended, inter aha, that he is a Chalgeni tenant of the entire Sy No. 243/4 of the extent of 27 cents and the lease was for agricultural purposes and that as an agricultural tenant, he is entitled to the protection of the Act. It is not relevant to refer to the other contentions of the defendant. The learned Munsiff framed the following issues among others:-" (i) Whether the defendant is a tenant within the meaning of the karnataka Land Reforms Act? (ii) Whether the suit land is not a land as defined under the Karnataka land Reforms Act? (iii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the issue relating to tenancy? ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff heard arguments on issues (ii) and (iii) and held that whether the suit property is a 'land' as defined under the Act, is matter incidental to the determination of the question of tenancy under the Act and since the question of tenancy under the Act can be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue whether the Act applies to the lease in question. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition. The plaintiff's case, as already stated, is that it is a lease of a building for business purposes. If the object of the lease is as alleged by the plaintiff, then the Act has no application. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is a creature of the statute, depends on the determination of the jurisdictional question whether the lease is one of land as defined in S. 2 (A), (18) of the Act. 'land' has been defined under S. 2 (A) (18) of the Act thus:" 'land' means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient! thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden and pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include housesite or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. " ( 5 ) THE preamble of the Act states the scope and purpose of the Act. It states that it is an enactment for making a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings and for certain other matters appearing therein. The Act deals with agrarian relations and ceiling on land holdings besides other incidental matters. The Act is not intended to apply to all lands in the state of Karnataka. It is common knowledge that the Dist of S. Kanara from which this case comes, formed part of the State of Madras where there was no classification of lands as agricultural and non-agricultural. There was no provision in that State requiring the owners of land to obtain conversion for non-agricultural purposes, after payment of what is called ' Conversion fine'. In the erstwhile State of Mysore and in the Bombay and Hyderabad areas which came to this State, there were Revenue Laws which classified lands as agricultural and non-agricultural, and before agricultural lands couuld be put to non-agricultural purposes the owner was required to obtain conversion after payment of conversion fine. In the dist of S. Kanara and also in the former State of Coorg, there was no such classification of lands as agricultural and non-agricultural. In the dist of S. Kanara and also in the former State of Coorg, there was no such classification of lands as agricultural and non-agricultural. It is common knowledge that throughout the West-Coast, when a house is let there will be some land which forms a compound for the house and within such a compound a few coconut trees or mango trees or such other fruit trees are grown. Within the area of Mangalore Municipality, it is very rare to find a house with a compound where there is no coconut or mango trees. Similar is the case in other towns in the Dist. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the extent of the land on which there is a tiled house. The total extent of the land with the house is 27 cents, which is approximately onefourth of an acre. The defendant contends that there are a few coconut and ether fruit trees. In such a case, there is no presumption that the lease is for agricultural purposes. It is also common knowledge that farm-workers are provided with houses by agriculturists. In the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, there is a special provision made for protection of tenants on such house sites and such tenants are called 'kudikidappukarans'. There is no corresponding provision under the Act. If the subject-matter of the. suit is wet land prima facie the lease will be one for agricultural purposes and the matter will be one relating to agrarian relations. The land in the instant case has been classified in the revenue records as 'punja'. Under the Survey and Settlement Scheme in the Dist of S. Kanara. 'punja', lands are lands on which only thatching grass naturally grows. Such lands are not brought under cultivation either as wet land or as garden. The land in the instant case has been classified in the revenue records as 'punja'. Under the Survey and Settlement Scheme in the Dist of S. Kanara. 'punja', lands are lands on which only thatching grass naturally grows. Such lands are not brought under cultivation either as wet land or as garden. ( 6 ) THE learned Munsiff relied on a judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Shivappa Satawappa Ashtekar v. Gajanan Chinaman Deshpande ,55 1953 Bomlr 843 wherein Justice Shah, as he then was, has held that the decision of the question whether a person is or is not a tenant within the meaning of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, involves the determination of three questions: (i) Whether he is an agriculturist, (ii) Whether he holds the land on lease and (iii) Whether the land is agricultural land, and that the jurisdiction to decide all the three questions in determining the status of a person as a tenant must be deemed exclusively to be vested in the Mamlatdar under the Act. When at the threshold of the enquiry in a suit pending before a Civil Court, the question whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted by the Act arises, it is the duty of the Civil Court to decide the jurisdictional question whether the Act applies to the subject-matter of the suit. If it decides that the Act applies to the subject-matter of the suit, then the Civil Court has to stay its hands and refer the question of tenancy for adjudication by the competent Tribunal under the Act. Where a person claiming to be a tenant applies for registration of occupancy under the Act, the owner of the land may contend that to the subject-matter of the lease, the Act has no application. Then the Tribunal has to decide whether the Act applies or not. If the Tribunal erroneously decides that the Act applies, then that being a jurisdictional fact, the aggrieved party fen get it corrected by approaching this Court for relief under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By an erroneous decision, the Tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction on itself. These are well-settled principles. It is unnecessary to refer to many authorities. If the Tribunal erroneously decides that the Act applies, then that being a jurisdictional fact, the aggrieved party fen get it corrected by approaching this Court for relief under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By an erroneous decision, the Tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction on itself. These are well-settled principles. It is unnecessary to refer to many authorities. It is sufficient if I refer to the decision in Musamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabari Govindabhai ratanbhai (2), where the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred in considering the question whether the provisions of the Act (Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act) are applicable to the disputed land during a particular period (Vide para 7 ). ( 7 ) IN Maji Timmanna Bhat v. State of Mysore (3), Narayana Pai, J, as he then was, said :" When the lurisdiction of a Tribunal depends upon the existence of certain facts if the existence of those facts is disputed, the Tribunal cannot proceed to act unless that dispute is settled. " ( 8 ) SINCE the dispute in the instant case has arisen in a suit before the Civil court, the Civil Court has to decide whether the Act applies to the subject-matter of the suit. If it comes to the conclusion that the Act is applicable, then the question of tenancy which is not in dispute need not be referred to the Tribunal. If the question of tenancv is in dispute, then that question has to be referred to the Tribunal, once the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the lease is for agricultural purposes. The learned munsiff has not given any decision on the question whether the suit property is agricultural land and the lease was one for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I allow this revision petition set aside the order of the court below and direct the learned Munsiff to decide the disputed question whether the subject-matter of the suit is one to which the Act applies. It is ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .