Judgment :- 1. Two points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. They are (1) Whether in a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent based on a lease deed an issue whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property can be raised, and (2) whether an application for deleting an issue framed in the suit can be simply disposed of saying "No ground. Dismissed". 2. The plaintiff in O. S. No: 247 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiff Kasaragod is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition In the above suit filed for recovery of property with arrears of rent the trial court framed six issues and issue No. 2 was "whether the plaintiff has got title to R. S.430 of Adoor Village". Thereupon, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 239 of 1976 for deleting the above issue contending that in a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent based on a lease deed the question of title is not relevant. It seems, the respondent-defendant filed a counter-affidavit in the above interim application. Thereupon, the trial court dismissed the above interim application of the plaintiff for deleting the issue. The order reads: "Counter-affidavit filed. No ground. Dismissed". The petitioner challenges the above order of the trial court in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Shri U. P. Kunikullaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court went wrong in dismissing the plaintiff's application for deleting the issue because in a suit for recovery of possession based on a lease deed, the question of title of the plaintiff-landlord does not at all arise. It is also pointed out that in the suit court-fee was paid only under S.22 Article I Schedule I read with S.43(3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, (Act 10 of 1960). Learned counsel further contends that at any rate the trial court went wrong in dismissing the plaintiff's application without a speaking order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has also referred to a few decisions. In Balasidhantam v. Peramal Chetty (XXVII MLJ. 475) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has said: "In a suit brought under S.7 Cl. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has also referred to a few decisions. In Balasidhantam v. Peramal Chetty (XXVII MLJ. 475) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has said: "In a suit brought under S.7 Cl. XI cc) of the Court Fees Act paying court fee upon one year's rent, the court cannot go into title and give a decree on that footing." The above was a suit by a landlord for recovery of arrears of rent due from his tenant and for ejectment on the ground that the term of tenancy had expired. In Durga Prasad Goenka v. Debidutt Saraff (AIR. 1952 Assam 27) Thadani C. J. speaking for the Court has said: "Ordinarily the question of title in an ejectment suit is not material The material issue is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant." In Kesavan v. Narayanan (AIR. 1953 TC.118) the court said: "The issues must relate to the main questions in the suit and must be calculated to direct the attention of the parties to those questions They must be sufficiently specific and should be confined to material facts. Subsidiary matters of fact on which the parties might be at variance ought not to be made the subject matter of an issue as that would be embarrassing." The court further said: "It is no doubt the duty of the Court to frame issues. If, however, proper issues are not framed, it is up to the parties to move the court to get proper issues framed." In Kochu Kumari v. Krishnan (AIR. 1952 TC. 248) Subramonia Iyer J. said: The court cannot dispose of an application for removal of receiver in a summary fashion that 'the facts alleged in the petition are insufficient to quash the order passed by this Court'. The Court is bound to deal with the various grounds on which the relief by way of removal of the Receiver is sought and come to a conclusion " In the above case, the High Court in revision interfered with an order refusing to remove a receiver on the ground that the matter cannot be disposed of in a summary fashion. 4. Shri Kunikullaya is well-founded in his contentions. 4. Shri Kunikullaya is well-founded in his contentions. The trial court has tailed to consider that in a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent on the basis of a lease deed the question of title is not at all material. The trial court went wrong in framing an issue on a point on which the parties in the suit cannot join issue The trial court ought to have allowed the plaintiff's application for deleting the issue But, instead of doing that, the trial court chose to dismiss that application saying "No ground". It goes without saying that the trial court ought to have disposed of the application by a speaking order. Even this, the trial court did not do. The trial court was clearly in the wrong in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction to delete an issue which could not be raised in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the nature of the suit. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the trial court impugned by the petitioner is set aside Issue No. 2 framed by the trial court will stand deleted. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.