JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order of learned Civil Judge (SD), Bhinmal dated 21.1.1999 by which he refused to frame additional issue on a pleading of the defendant taken in the written statement. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record. 3. Admittedly Bhinmal is a place where provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 do not apply. 4. Plaintiff Prahlad Das filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of a shop which was let out to the defendant. Plaintiff terminated tenancy w.e.f. 1.11.1995. The shop was let out for business. 5. The case of the defendant, inter alia is that the suit property was let out to him for manufacturing purposes and when lease relates to manufacturing purposes, the tenancy as per provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on part of either lessor or lessee by six months' notice expiring with the need of year of the tenancy. 6. Learned counsel submitted that there is a specific plea in the written statement regarding it and even then the issue was not framed by trial Court. When attention was drawn by filing application for framing additional a issues, the same was rejected on the ground that the point was covered in another issue relating to notice and that the suit has been tried and the issue could not be framed. Learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the Court itself to frame relevant issues and since relevant issue was not framed, it should be framed now. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue regarding notice was framed and it includes the controversy. He cited Mangal v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) page 311 , in which six additional issues were sought to be framed but they were not necessary for the dispute. He has also Smt. Bimlabai wd/o Khushal Singh & Ors. He cited Mangal v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) page 311 , in which six additional issues were sought to be framed but they were not necessary for the dispute. He has also Smt. Bimlabai wd/o Khushal Singh & Ors. v. Shri Shantilal S/o Dhannaji & Ors., AIR 1993 M.P. page 44 , in which there already existed a issue as to the tenability of the suit in general terms and, therefore, it was held that no specific issue need be framed on every ground as no prejudice was caused to the property. 8. Issue regarding validity of notice, burden of which is on plaintiff, is not wide to include the point in controversy. It is the duty of the Courts to frame all relevant issues. Guidelines to that effect are available to the subordinate Courts in Mangilal v. Gendmal, 1957 RLW page 173 para No. 12 wherein it was observed that the Courts below should remember that the duty of framing issues rests on the Court under our Code of Civil Procedure and that the fair trial of a case basically depends upon the proper framing of issues therein and further, when issues are framed, it must be remembered that they must relate to all material propositions of fact or law affirmed by the one party an denied by the other, that is matters which the plaintiff must allege in order to succeed in his suit or the defendant must allege in order to establish his defence. In this citation attention of the Courts below was drawn to the well established rule laid down in the Privy Council judgment in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mr. Saran, AIR 1950 Privy Council page 57 , wherein it was held that where a claim has never been made in the defence presented, no amount of evidence can be looked into-upon a plea which was never put forward. It was further observed that it is very much to be hoped that the Courts below as well as parties and their counsel do not neglect observance of these rules, and that it is not too late in the day to insist on their observance, otherwise trials in our Courts are bound to fall of their supreme effect and purpose, namely, the administration of justice. This view of Hon'ble Modi, J. is to be followed in every trial of a civil case. 9. This view of Hon'ble Modi, J. is to be followed in every trial of a civil case. 9. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Rum Kumar v. Ram Kumar & Ors., 1978 WLN page 603 , in which issue not covering amount in controversy was not framed. It was held that no relief can he granted unless the plea was established, therefore,.it was necessary for the trial Court to frame issue regarding the plea. It was further held that when the trial Court refused to frame relevant issue, it had exercised jurisdiction illegally and case for interference under the provisions of Section 115 CPC was made out. 10. Looking to the facts of this case when there is specific plea of the defendant that the suit property was let out to hint for manufacturing purposes and the suit could not be decreed unless a notice of six months terminating the tenancy is given, is such a relevant issue which should have been framed by the learned trial Judge. This point is not covered under Issue No. 2 framed by the trial Court as it relates to ti .c validity of the notice which terminated tenancy on 1.1 1.1995. 11. Consequently, the "revision petition is hereby allowed and the order of learned Civil Judge (SD) Bhinmal, refusing to frame additional issue, is set aside. He is directed to frame additional issue as suggested by the defendant. No ord rs as to costs.Revision allowed. *******