The main legal point established is that S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Second Amendment Act, 1974, applies retrospectively to pending proceedings, requiring issues of tenancy to be referred to the Tribunal.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has come before us on a reference made by venkataswami, J. , by his order d. 5-9-1974 on the ground that this appeal in volves an imporant question of law regarding applicability of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. That Ordinance has been replaced by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1374 (hereinafter referred to as the Second Amendment Act, 1974),

( 2 ) THE respondents instituted the suit on the 12th of April 1959 for recovery of possession of i area in 10 acres on which grass is grown in the land Sy. No. 77 measuring 23 acres and 20 guntas of Examba village in the taluka of Chikodi and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 450. The case of the plaintiffs is that in 10 acres in the land Sy. No. 77 grass is grown spontaneuosly without human effort and that out of the said 10 acres, 4 acres were leased to the defendant. Their turther case is that out of the said extent leased, the defendant has cultivated 14 acres of land by raising other crops. They have, therefore, sought recovery of possession only of the remaining extent of land leased to. the defendant. Their case is that as grass is grown on the suit land spontaneously without any human effort, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are not applicable. They, therefore, terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under S. 83 of the Bombay Revenue Code and instituted the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. The appellant-defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that he is a protected tenant of the entire land leased to him and that therefore, the plaintiffs are not enlited to seek recovery of possession in a Civil Court. His further case is that in the suit land to the extent of half an acre he has grown other crops and that in an extent of 2 acres, he has grown grass with his own effort and that grsss does not grow spontaneously on the said extent of land. He took the stand that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 is applicable to the entire suit land and that therefore the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit,

( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff, after framing several issues and considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding to the effect that the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not applicable to the suit land as grass is grown on the suit land spontaneously without the help of human effort. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent to the extant of Rs. 282 In view of the said findings, the learned Munsiff made a decree for possession and lor recovery of arrears of rent of Rs 282. The defendant challenged the said decree by way of appeal before the Civil Judge, Belgaum. the learned civil Judge, by his judgment and decree made in R. A. No, 483 of 1965, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the learned munsiff. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant,

( 4 ) SHRI 3. L. Benadikar, learned Counsel for ths appellant, contended that as the defendant has claimed that he is in possession of the suit land as a protected tenant, the court of first instance should have framed an appropriate issue regarding tenancy. Ho contended that an issue regarding tenency should now be framed and the case should be remitted to the court of first instance with a direction to regulate the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Second amendment Act

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the suit land is an agricultural land and that the defendant is the tenant of the same. Whereas the case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is not a protected tenant as only grass grows on the land without human effort, the case of the defendant is that he is a protected tenant of the same. By the Act which ca