M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. He has raised a pure point of law in this civil revision petition and he is relying heavily on the decision of this Court in Ishmad Pasha and Others v State of Karnataka and Others1. The plaintiffs claim to be a religious charitable institution and the petitioner who is the defendant before the Trial Court and is a tenant has disputed the status of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has framed an issue for purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs come within the exempted status of Religious Charitable Institutions or not. The defendant had contended before the Trial Court that this issue regarding the special status of the plaintiffs is required to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) and (iv) of the Rent Act for purposes of deciding the status issue, and that the issue must be referred to the Divisional Commissioner and the proceedings stayed by the Trial Court until this is done. It is true that in the decision referred to supra that the learned Single judge of this Court has taken the view, and very rightly so, that when this issue of status is referred to the Commissioner that the proceedings before the Trial Court must be stayed for a reasonable period of time until that determination is completed. Mr. Rai relies on the observation of the earned Single Judge at page 1768 of the judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that the power to decide this application is conferred on the Divisional Commissioner, and the submission is that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the status question and that consequently, interference is necessary. ( 2 ) FOR purposes of examining the correct legal position one needs to go to the exact wording of the Act which is as follows:"explanation. If any doubt arises as to whether any institution referred to in sub-clause (iii) or (iv) is a Muzrai or a religious or Charitable or Wakfs Institution, the decision of the divisional Commissioner shall be final". If any doubt arises as to whether any institution referred to in sub-clause (iii) or (iv) is a Muzrai or a religious or Charitable or Wakfs Institution, the decision of the divisional Commissioner shall be final". ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel before me submits that the learned Single judge has very clearly interpreted the legal position which is to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the status question and that it is to be referred to the Divisional Commissioner and the second submission is that when the defendant has disputed the special status of the plaintiffs' that i. pso facto a doubt arises and consequently, the issue must be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for decision. He is supported by the observation of the learned Single Judge which I have referred to earlier. ( 4 ) THIS Court is obliged to go strictly by the provisions of law and even if a particular interpretation has been given in a judgment, it is the wording of the section that will prevail. In the first instance, the section does not oast the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from deciding the status issue which will necessarily have to be decided in all cases where the same is disputed. One needs to call a parallel between the provisions relating to tenancy which may arise before a Civil Court and wherein the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the question and is obliged to refer the issue to the tenancy Court because the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by the statute. The explanation in the present instance does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter of deciding the status. All that is provided for is that if a doubt arises in the mind of the Court with regard to the status then only in that event. it will be necessary to refer the question to the Divisional Commissioner. Whether a doubt arises or not is a question of fact and that position will depend on what view the Trial Court takes on the material that the parties present before it. ( 5 ) UNDER these circumstances, to my mind the application filed for reference to the Divisional Commissioner is premature. Whether a doubt arises or not is a question of fact and that position will depend on what view the Trial Court takes on the material that the parties present before it. ( 5 ) UNDER these circumstances, to my mind the application filed for reference to the Divisional Commissioner is premature. If at all a doubt does arise before the Civil Court then it is open to the defendant to pray for a reference to the Divisional Commissioner, but to my mind at this point of time the Trial Court was right in having turned down the application. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to this position, no interference is called for with the order in question. The civil revision petition accordingly fails and stands disposed off. --- *** --- .