JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant revision petition, the petitioners plaintiffs have challenged the order dated September 8,1989, passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu passed in Civil Original Suit No. 64 of 1980 whereby the learned Distt. Judge held that looking to the nature of the suit to the determination of the rent in terms of Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was required. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The petitioners filed a suit for possession against the non-petitioner defendant on the ground that the defendant was a licencee in possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs revoked the license and asked the non-petitioner to hand over possession. The respondent did not comply with the practise. The plaintiffs also claimed mense profits. Incidently, the plaintiffs also averred that the non-petitioner defendant was a tenant in respect of the above suit property for a fixed term. After the expiry of the above term, the defendant non-petitioner vacated the premises and handed over the same to him, but, some goods were lying belonging to the non-petitioner. Permission was obtained from the petitioners plaintiffs for the same. The plaintiffs by way of caution also alleged personal bona fide necessity and in that connection also stated that the defendant has got his own accommodation. Learned counsel has submitted that merely by grounds which may incidently happened to be identical with the grounds of eviction as enshrined in Section 13 of the Act, the nature of the suit cannot be changed. The nature of the suit of the plaintiff must be ascertained with the material averments by him. If the plaintiffs brought a suit for possession on the basis of revocation of license and refusal by the defendant to vacate the premises, such a suit cannot be converted into a suit based on the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Act. Even if the plaintiffs made certain averments are like personal necessity or availability of alternate accommodation the nature of the suit did not change. If the matters found by the Court irrelevant are near incidental, no issues be framed. The learned Distt. Judge has passed an order without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in converting the simple suit for possession into a suit to have been filed under Section 13 of the act. 4. If the matters found by the Court irrelevant are near incidental, no issues be framed. The learned Distt. Judge has passed an order without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in converting the simple suit for possession into a suit to have been filed under Section 13 of the act. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that the learned Distt. Judge considered the matter and decided. Such a decision may be either right or wrong but it cannot be said that the learned Distt. Judge has acted without jurisdiction or committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. He also submitted a perusal of whole plaint shows that the plaintiffs have incorporated the grounds of eviction as mentioned in Section 13 of the Act. The Distt. Judge has, therefore, not committed any error and it does not call for any interference in revision. 5. I have considered the matter and carefully perused the pleading. A perusal of the pleading clearly shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession. The basis of suit is the fact that the defendant who was previously a tenant in the suit premises vacated the same and the tenancy came to an end. However, the defendant sought permission of the plaintiffs to keep his goods in the suit premises and to remove the same after sometime. As the defendant did not remove the same despite notices by the plaintiffs, a cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs to file this suit for possession and mense profits. Incidently, the plaintiffs also pleaded personal bona fide necessity and also the fact that the defendant has got an alternate accommodation thereby the plaintiffs tried to strengthen the plea of personal bona fide necessity. In my opinion these facts were only incidental and on these averments, the suit has not been barrd. The cause of action claimed by the plaintiffs was refusal by the defendant to vacate the premises after the termination of the license. The plaintiffs would succeed or fail on these averments alone. 6. For the above reasons learned Distt. Judge has acted without jurisdiction in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs comes under Section 13 of the Act. 7. I, therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Distt. Judge. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Revision allowed . *******