T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE disposal of the application for referring the matter to the land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act is assailed in this Revision Petition. ( 2 ) THE suit is one for injunction on the ground that the plaintiff is in possession and the defendant is not in possession. The defendant, however, raised the question that he is in possession of the land in question and possession is transferred to his tenancy. It is further claimed by the defendant that he has moved the Tribunal already for the purpose of confirming rights under the concerned Act, namely, k. L. R. Act. The Trial Court considered Sections 77a and 133 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, which is as follows:"77a. Grant of land in certain cases: 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Deputy commissioner or the Special Deputy Commissioner is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a person. i) was immediately before the first day of March 1971, in actual possession and cultivation of any land not exceeding one unit, which has vested in the State Government under Section 44; and ii) being entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land under Section 45 or 49 has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of Section 48a within the period specified there, and iii) has continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997. " section 133 - (i) No civil or criminal Court or officer or authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land (14) (xxx) decide the question whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the land said from prior to 1st march 1974. " ( 3 ) THE Trial Court found that "admittedly in this case the defendants have not filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. " the defendants wants to rely upon the amendment. The Trial Court further found that the provisions of Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act contemplates that if there is a tenancy that is existing even after 1. 3. " the defendants wants to rely upon the amendment. The Trial Court further found that the provisions of Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act contemplates that if there is a tenancy that is existing even after 1. 3. 1974 then the Civil Court shall have to frame the tenancy issue and refer the matter to the Land Tribunal, no tenancy except the one recognised by Section 5 of the Act can be deemed to be in existence with effect from or after 1974. Therefore, the question of framing an issue in this suit after 1974 does not arise at all. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Now it is the correctness of that order that is being challenged before me. ( 4 ) IN fact the matter is, in my opinion, set at rest by the ruling of this Court reported in B. V. SUBBACHARI vs B. K. JOYAPPA1, wherein this Court has held that in a suit for injunction, the question of tenancy is not relevant. This is the finding rendered:"in a suit for permanent injunction alone, the question of tenancy is not relevant, but the only question is as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. The character, nature and the source of possession of the plaintiffs are not very relevant but only factum of possession is relevant. The Civil Court has certainly jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction and to pass appropriate interim orders during the pendency of the suit. A person in possession can be evicted only under due process of law and even a rightful owner cannot dispossess him by force. If he cannot be evicted by force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist the interference with his possession by any one including the rightful owner. If the owner threatens the peaceful possession of a person, certainly, he will be entitled to approach the Courts of Law and pray for the relief of injunction to protect his possession and not to interfere with the same otherwise than under due process of law. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act also indicates that a person who is wrongfully dispossessed, can get back possession of the property even from the rightful owner and that the question of title is immaterial. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act also indicates that a person who is wrongfully dispossessed, can get back possession of the property even from the rightful owner and that the question of title is immaterial. What Section 133 of the Act provides is that "no Civil Court. , shall in any suit. . . decide the question. . . . . Whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant. . . " In any suit, the Court will decide a question only if it arises. The words "no Court shall decide in any suit" clearly indicate and imply that the question must arise in the suit. If the question does not arise, the Court deciding the matter does not arise. . . a rethinking is necessary on the effect of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on injunction suits. "no doubt it is. true that my brother Justice Krishna Moorthy has expressed the view that rethinking is necessary. But to my knowledge no rethinking has been done so far and this rule as it stands in the statute book. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING the above decision, I find there is no merit in the revision and the Revision Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .