JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has been directed against the order of learned Civil Judge (JD), Sheogani passed on 17.3.1999 in Civil Suit No. 1/96. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and gone through the record. 3. Plaintiff respondent Sheshmal filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default and reasonable and bona fide necessity in relation to shop. Defendant, who is the petitioner before me, filed his written statement in which he pleaded that on Kartik Sud I Samvat year 2051 only ground floor was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-, therefore, he was a tenant of the suit premises from Samvat year 2051 and not for last 15-16 years as averred by the plaintiff. The trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. When the case was fixed for defendant's evidence, he filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code for framing additional issue but by the impugned order the learned trial Court dismissed the application. 4. It has been submitted during the arguments by the learned Counsel for the defendant petitioner that a new tenancy was created and that plea was raised in the written statement but the trial court, which was supposed to frame the issue, committed error by not framing issue. He submitted that when attention of the trial court was drawn by way of application, its dismissal was also erroneous. As such the trial court committed error amenable to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code Hence, the revision petition should be allowed. 5. Reliance has been placed on Govind Narain v. Mohan Singh, R.L.R. 1992(1) 504 , in which the facts were that a shop was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- on 24.5.1968 for one year. Fresh rent note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 3.8.1979 for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- from 1.8.1979. The rent was increased because the landlord had got done flooring and electricity fitting in shop and also made provision for keeping the goods. In these circumstances it was held that a new tenancy was created w.e.f. 1.8.1979. 100/- from 1.8.1979. The rent was increased because the landlord had got done flooring and electricity fitting in shop and also made provision for keeping the goods. In these circumstances it was held that a new tenancy was created w.e.f. 1.8.1979. But in the case in hand it is not so, Here, after going through the pleadings, I find that in para No. 2 of the plaint plaintiff has pleaded that the shop in question was let out to the defendant 15-16 years ago on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-Rent was paid only upto Diwali of Samvat year 2049. This plea was denied by the defendant in para No. 2 and it was specifically pleaded that the whole building was under the tenancy of the defendant earlier. But in Samvat year 2051 the upper storey was got vacated by the plaintiff and from Kartik Sud 1 of Samvat year 2051 only ground floor was let out to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. As such the defendant was tenant in the suit premises w.e.f. Kartik Sud 1 Samvat year 2051. There is no averment that a new tenancy was created or a new rent note was executed. Rajasthan High Court in Sardar Singh v. Prakash Singh, RLR 1987 (11) page 890 , held that under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Evidence) Act, 1950 delivery of actual physical possession of demised property to landlord in pursuance of surrender of old tenancy and then taking back in pursuance of new tenancy is necessary. It was also held that by a mere increase of rent it cannot be said that new tenancy came into existence. In the case in hand surprisingly the defendant has admitted that when whole premises were under his tenancy, the rent was Rs. 400/- and even when ground floor is in his tenancy Samvat year 2051, the rent still remains Rs. 400/- per month. If a new tenancy was created then there should have been either a documentary proof or a circumstance to show that such a new tenancy was created. It appears improbable that the rent of the full property was Rs. 400/- and when a portion of it was vacated, it still remained Rs. 400/- per month. 400/- per month. If a new tenancy was created then there should have been either a documentary proof or a circumstance to show that such a new tenancy was created. It appears improbable that the rent of the full property was Rs. 400/- and when a portion of it was vacated, it still remained Rs. 400/- per month. It was tried to draw attention towards the statement of defendant Chauth Mal, but that cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding the point whether the issue should be framed or not. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the learned trial court in the order impugned. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No. order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******