K.S. SIDHU, J.—This petition of revision under sec. 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated December 14, 1978, passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, thereby refusing to delete issue No. 3, which he had framed on April 7, 1978. The issue which the learned Judge has refused [to delete reads as under : "3. In the event of a decree for eviction not being passed in the suit, whether the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship than the defendant ?" The petitioners grievance is that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and still the learned Munsiff is not agreeable to delete it. It is true that so far as Order XIV rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The said rule, however, does not lay down the nega- tive that an issue cannot arise otherwise than from the formal pleadings of the parties. Any lawyer familiar with the practice of the matrimonial courts in this country will bear out that issues like issue as to whether there is collusion between the parties or not arising out of sec. 23, Hindu Marriage Act, are framed by the matrimonial court no matter whether or not the parties have pleaded the necessary facts in their pleadings. This is because the court is forbidden to grant relief under secs. 10 and 13 of the said Act unless it is satisfied that the petition under secs. 10 or 13 is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent. It is generally considered safe and helpful to frame an issue on the point so that the petitioner may not be taken by surprise by the courts subsequent to grant relief to him despite proof of the ground or grounds on which such relief was claimed, merely because the court discovered from some chance material on the record that the petition was presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent. 2. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1959, as amended to date, provides another instance of a statute containing a provision which would justify an issue even if the pleadings do not contain & specific averment and denial of such averment in a formal manner. 2. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1959, as amended to date, provides another instance of a statute containing a provision which would justify an issue even if the pleadings do not contain & specific averment and denial of such averment in a formal manner. Sec. 14(2) of this Act lays down that no decree for eviction on the ground that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the land lord, shall be passed if the court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the land lord or the tenant greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Now it is obvious that, whether the parties plead or not, a duty is cast on the court to determine the possible consequences of a presumptive decree for eviction in terms of comparative hardship to the parties. The issue stated above was framed by the trial court keeping in view the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14. No legitimate objection can, therefore, be taken to the framing of this issue. 3. Even otherwise, I am not prepared to hold that the issue in question does not arise at all out of the pleadings of the parties. After all this issue is merely a species of the genue which consists of issue No. 2 relating to reasonable and bonafied requirement of the landlord. It underscores one aspect or what is described as reasonable and bonafide requirement while engaged in the enquiry as to comparative hardship, the court will, in a manner, be also determining whether the landlords alleged requirement is in fact reasonable and bonafide. The two issues, therefore, arise out of one and the same proposition of fact which is already affirmed, in a general way, by one party and denied by the other. 4. The two issues, therefore, arise out of one and the same proposition of fact which is already affirmed, in a general way, by one party and denied by the other. 4. In any case, the impugned order does not involve any such illegality or material irregularity as may call for interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. Section 115 as amended by the Amending Act of 1976, lays down inter alia, that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made by a subordinate court except where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. I cannot see as how an issue on the question of comparative hardship, if allowed to stand, could possibly occasion any failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner-defendant. 5. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.