CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of Kudoor, J. ; in WP. No. 10262 of 1976. The appellant and respondent-2 herein were respondent-2 and the petitioner res. pectively in the writ petition. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner had impugned the order of the Laad tribunal dismissing his application under 48a of the Karnataka Land Re. forms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Tribunal held that the land in respect of which he had sought for occupancy right, was not an agricultural land as defined in sub-sect. (10 of S. 2 of the Act. The learned single judge quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed it to hold a fresh enquiry into the petitioner's claim, according to law. ( 3 ) THE dispute relates to the premises consisting of 50 cents of land and a house therein situate within the municipal limits of Udupi town. In that land there is another building which was'formerly occupied by a School and is now occupied by the office of the N. C. C. In that land there are about 80 trees like coconut, areca and other fruit yielding trees. There is also a well with an electric pump, a pump house and a cement storage tank. The petitioner is a clerk in a private firm. The rent for the premises is Rs. 25 per month and the tenancy is a monthly one. ( 4 ) THE main controversy between the parties is, whether the premises should be regarded as an agricultural land with a farm house or a non-agricultural land consisting of a house with a big compound. The premises, if regarded as an agricultural land with a farm house situate therein, will undoubtedly come within the scope of the Act. On ttie other hand if the premises should be regarded as a house with a compound appurtenant to it, such premises cannot be regarded as an agricultural land even though there may be some trees and plants in that compound. While determining whether the premises should be regarded as agricultural or non-agricultural, one must look to the dominant characteristics of such premises. The mere fact that there are some plants and trees in the compound of a house, will not render the premises an agricultural one. While determining whether the premises should be regarded as agricultural or non-agricultural, one must look to the dominant characteristics of such premises. The mere fact that there are some plants and trees in the compound of a house, will not render the premises an agricultural one. Likewise, the mere fact that in an agricultural land there is a house used as a farm house, will not render such premises non-agricultural. ( 5 ) THE following are the salient features of the premises in question : (i) The premises are situate within the municipal limits of Udupi town, (ii) The premises are assessed to municipal tax. (iii) The tenancy of the premises is monthly and not annual and the rent fixed is also monthly. (iv) The tenant is a clerk in a firm and not an agriculturist by profession (v) The vegetation in the unbuilt portion of the land consists of fruit. bearing trees and no crops are raised by cultivation with a plough. ( 6 ) SHRI P. Shivanna, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that having regard to the aforesaid characteristics of the premises, the Tribunal had reached the correct conclusion that the premises were non-agricultural and that the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the decision of the tribunal. ( 7 ) ON the oiher hand, Shri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned counsel for the tenant, submitted that in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act relating to the premises, a Commissioner had been appointed for local investigation of the premises, that he had reported that in that land there were a well, a pump house and a cement tank for storage of water and that the Tribunal had not considered the report of the Commissioner, which according to Sri Gopalakrishna shetty, was very material for determining whether the premises were agricultural or non-agricultural. Sri Gopalakrishna Shetty laid particular emphasis on the circumstance that the house situate in that land was a small one while the number of trees standing in the land were as many as 85. ( 8 ) IN determining the dominant character of the premises, i. e. whether agricultural or non-agricultural, no one factor is decisive and the cumulative effect of all factors should be considered. Having regard to the circumstances that the premises are situate within the municipal limits, that they are assessed to municipal tax. ( 8 ) IN determining the dominant character of the premises, i. e. whether agricultural or non-agricultural, no one factor is decisive and the cumulative effect of all factors should be considered. Having regard to the circumstances that the premises are situate within the municipal limits, that they are assessed to municipal tax. that the tenancy is monthly and not annual, that the rent is also monthly and not annual and that the tenant is not an agriculturist by profession, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the premises are non-agricultural, can. not be said to be erroneous and much less manifestly erroneous, so as to call for interference by this Court uader Article 226 of the Constitution. All that was stated in the aforesaid report of the Commissioner was about the existence of a well, a pump, a pump house, a cement storage tank and the trees in the premises. The existence of a well, a pump, a pump-house and a storage tank are not inconsistent with the premises being a residential house with a compound appurtenant to it. It is not unusual to find residential houses with extensive compounds having a number of fruit bearing trees. It is not unusual to instal electric pumps and storage tanks for watering trees and plants in compounds of such houses. The number of trees in the premises in question, is not so large as to regard the same as an agricultural garden land. Especially in Dakshina Kannada District most houses in towns are surrounded by coconut trees and other fruit bearing trees and will have kitchen gardens. The report of the Commissioner, even if it had been taken into account by the Tribunal, could not have materially affected its decision. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing the order of the Tribunal and remitting the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. ( 9 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single judge and dismiss the writ petition. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .