M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THERE is no substance in the Second Appeal ( 2 ) SUIT by the plaintiff for recovery of posses-sion and arrears of rent came to be decreed in o. S. No. 42 of 1991 filed in the Court of the Man- siff, Ramdurga in Belgaum District. The defen- dant resisted the suit inter alia that the suit was not maintainable as Karnataka House Rent Control act is applicable to Ramdurga town. On that, a specific issue was framed and tried as a preliminary issue. That preliminary issue was decided on 26-8-1986 holding that though the rent Control Act was applicable to Ramdurga town and Us suburbs, having regard to the definition of'building' in the said H. R. C. Act, a farm house was excluded and therefore not being a building within the meaning of that expression in the Rent Control Act, the said Act was not applicable. That order does not appear to have been challenged upto this date except on a ground urged, without producing copy of that order. ( 3 ) EVEN before the lower appellate Court, it was only urged as a ground ana argued. ( 4 ) CERTIFIED copy of the order does not appear to have been produced nor was it challenged in proceedings under Section 115 of C. P. C. in this court as it related to question of jurisdiction of the Court. ( 5 ) EVEN a perusal of that order by me at this stage indicates that the defendant himself, in his written statement, has admitted that the suit schedule premises was used to tether cattle in connection with cultivation of the land of the plaintiff of which he was a tenant. Having regard to that admission, the trial Court on the preliminary issue, came to the conclusion that it was not a building within the meaning of the House Rent control Act which does not appear to be incorrect. ( 6 ) IN any event, it is submitted from the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that he made application under Section 38-A of Karnataka land Reforms Act to have the premises granted to him as a farm house which was rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore, the same person cannot now be permitted to contend in this Court that the suit schedule premises is not a farm house. Therefore, the same person cannot now be permitted to contend in this Court that the suit schedule premises is not a farm house. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. --- *** --- .