The court highlighted the importance of proving jurisdictional issues and the limitations of the court's power to correct findings of fact or law under S. 115 of CPC.

( 1 ) THE revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order dt. 22. 4. 1978 passed by the District Judge, kolar, in H. R. R. P. No. 70 of 1976 setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Munsiff, K. G. F. in H. R. C. No. 17 of 1973.

( 2 ) THE parties have been referred to in the course of this order with reference to their position in the trial court.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-landlord filed the petition under S. 21 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961, alleging that the schedule premises had been leased out to the opponent tenant on a monthly rent of rs. 50 and that he had executed rent note dt. 1. 7. 1969 and that he had fallen in arrears to the tune of Rs. 350. According to him, the opponent tenant demolished the wall existing in the schedule premises on the eastern side between verandah passage and the room and he has constructed a new wall in the room portion. This is in violation of clause (o) of sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property act. He has unlawfully erected a permanent structure without the consent of the landlord. Hence under the said circumstances, he filed the petiton for eviction.

( 4 ) THE opponent-tenant by his objections denied all the petition allegations

( 5 ) THE Munsiff Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence, found that the opponent had put up-a permanent construction i. e. the wall without the consent and knowledge of the landlord and therefore the opponent was liable to be evicted. The District Judge in the revision before him set aside the conclusion arrived at by the Munsiff and conducted that the petitioner has failed to prove that it was the opponent-tenant that had put up the permanent structure. Taking this view, the learned district Judge set aside the order of eviction passed by the Munsiff and in the result dismissed the eviction petition. Therefore the revision petition by the landlord.

( 6 ) THE learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that demolishing of an existing wall or putting up a fresh wall would amount to material alteration and putting up a permanent construction. He has taken into consideration the plan Ex. P1 according to which the present construction was put up. He has also taken into consideration the legal notice Ex. D1 and the reply Ex-P3. Even in the legal notice Ex. D it is not mentioned as to in what year, what date or what month the wall was demolished or a new wall was put up. Even in the petition this has been kept rather too vague. Even the lease deed Ex. P5 dated 1. 7. 1969 under which the opponent took the lease does not specifically mention about the existence of the wall between the passage and the room and the putting up of a new construction or anyhing of the sort. The evidence oi tne petitioner p. W. 1 and his witness P. W. 2 has been rightly disbelieved by the court. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is rather hard to say that the District Judge has gone at a tangent or has taken into consideration some matters which were not on the record. Even it cannot be said that he has misinterpreted the facts that were available on the record. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel shri. Gopal for the landlord that the learned Judge has taken into consideration some facts which were not borne out by the record and that he has relied upon something which was not borne out by the record does not appeal to me in the least. Thus the District judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the present opponent who had come into possession of the petition property as per the lease deed ex. P5 dt. 1. 7. 1969 was not proved to have demolished the previous existing wall or put up a new one in another place. Therefore on facts also, the present revision petition fails.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel Shri Gopal in support of his contention referred me to the commentary on page 691 of Mulla on C. P. C. 1st volume, 14th Edn. Mulla has referred to Printers (Mys.) P. Ltd. , v. P. Joseph (1 ). It is sa