- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4 OF 2020 (IO) BETWEEN: SANTHOSH, S/O VITTAL BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SHIVAKALA NILAYA, SAMETHADKA, PUTTUR D.K - 574 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. SUBRAYA KEDILAYA, S/O LATE M. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KANTHA BHAVANA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K - 574 203. 2. VITTAL BANGERA S/O BABU SALIYAN, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT SHIVAKALA NILAYA, SAMETHADKA, PUTTUR, D.K - 574 203. 3. ANAND S/O SHREE SHARANAPPA, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT JANATHA SALOON, D NO.4-406, SRIKANH MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K - 574 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR A, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115 R/W.SEC.388(3) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.347/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT PUTTUR, D.K. NEGATIVELY ANSWERING THE ISSUE NO.4 - PRELIMINARY ISSUE HOLDING THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27.09.2019 in O.S.No.347/2016, whereby the concerned Court after formulating a preliminary issue holds that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 2. Heard Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sanath Kumar A., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The first respondent - plaintiff No.1 institutes a suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant in the premises. In the said suit, the written statement is filed by the petitioner denying the averments and also takes up the issue with regard to the entertainability of the suit before the concerned Court, as according to the petitioner, the rent that he was paying to the landlord was Rs.2,000/-. If it is Rs.2,000, the suit would not lie before the concerned Court, but under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, it would lie before the Controller. 4. The concerned Court on the submissions made by the petitioner and the respondents, formulates a preliminary issue with regard to entertainability of the suit jurisdiction. The concerned Court then holds that, in terms of the rent claimed by the plaintiff, it exceeds Rs.2,500/-, as the plaintiff had accepted the fact that the tenant would pay Rs.2,500/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 preceding December, 2015 and therefore, holds that the rent would be Rs.2,500/- and the suit would be maintainable. This is what has driven the tenant before this Court. 5. Learned counsel, Sri. B.S. Sachin, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is ambiguity in the amount of rent to be paid as it is Rs.2,000/- or Rs.2,500/- that would have to be thrashed out only by way of evidence. The jurisdiction in certain cases, the learned counsel would submit that, it would become a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, the Court ought not have gone by the plea of the plaintiff that the suit is entertainable, as the rent that was agreed to pay it was beyond Rs.2,000/-. 6. Learned counsel would submit that, if one opportunity is rendered, he would complete the evidence with regard to the preliminary issue and leave the Court to try other issues at a later point in time. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would vehemently contend that he has in his hand all - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 the rent receipts, which would clearly depict that the amount of rent that is paid by the petitioner to the respondents is Rs.2,500/- and not Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the suit in O.S.No.347/2016 for the relief that is filed was maintainable. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass as to what is to be determined is whether the preliminary issue so framed has been dealt with, in accordance with law by the concerned Court. The lengthy order that is passed by the concerned Court would leave one in doubt as to whether the Court considers the rent of Rs.2,500/- or Rs.2000/- per month. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court, insofar it is germane, is as follows: "12. In the present case plaintiff averred that, he is the owner of the plaint 'A' schedule premises. The defendant No.1 had taken the said room building on lease - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 vide lease agreement dated 18-01-2006, the defendant No.2 being the father of the defendant No.1 had signed the said lease agreement as on attestor. After taking the premises on lease defendant No.1 had started a salon in the said room building. However, contrary to the terms of tenancy defendant No.1 had inducted defendant No.2 and 3, as a sub-tenant into the said room building and now the plaintiff learns that the defendant No.1 is collecting a sum of Rs.850/- per day from the defendant No.3. The said induction of sub-tenancy is done without obtaining any consent from of plaintiff and against the terms of agreement of lease. The agreed rent per terms of leas is Rs.2,000/-. The defendant No.1 had paid rent to the plaintiff till December 2015 only. And preceding that month for past few years defendant No.1 use to pay to the plaintiff monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/-. However since January 2016 defendant No.1 had stopped paying rent inspite of demand being made through defendant No.2. The plaintiff was not desiring to continue the tenancy of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff issued registered lawyers notice on 15-03-2016 terminating the tenancy of the defendant No.1 and also calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent due and as per said notice tenancy was terminated with effect from 17th of April 2016. The defendants have not complied with the notice, as such he filed the suit. 13. Per contra, the defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the relationship with the plaintiff and alleged rent bond. The defendant no.2 who is the father of the defendant No.1 in his written statement also denied the tenancy relationship of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 clearly denied his signature as attestor on alleged rent bond and contended that the plaintiff has created alleged lease deed. Hence, it is clear that, the defendant No.1 and 2 denied the tenancy relationship of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff and alleged rent bond. 14. The plaintiff in his plaint clearly stated that, the agreed rent as per lease is Rs.2000/- per month. The defendant No.1 has paid rent to him till December 2015 only. And preceding month for past few years defendant No.1 use to pay to the plaintiff monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, on the perusal of the averments of the plaint it is clear that after December 2015 the rent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 payable by the defendant No.1 to the premises is at Rs.2,500/- per month. Wherefore, the rent claimed by the plaintiff exceeds Rs.2,000/- per month. The defendant No.1 and 2 clearly denied the tenancy relationship with the plaintiff and alleged lease deed between plaintiff and defendant No.1. When the rent claimed by the plaintiff exceeds Rs.2500/- as per section 2(e)(ii) of the Karnataka rent Act and when the defendant No.1 specifically denied the tenancy relationship with the plaintiff and alleged lease, the question of applicability of the Karnataka Rent Act to the prsent case will not arise. Therefore, issuing direction by this court to the plaintiff to file petition under Karnataka rent Act as contended by the defendant No.1 and 2 failed to prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try this case. Accordingly this issue No.4 answered in the Negative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The issue No.4 Preliminary issue is answered in the negative. It is held that this court has the jurisdiction to try this suit." The Court notices that the plaintiff in his plaint clearly states that agreed rent as per lease is Rs.2,000/- per month and the defendants have paid that rent to him till December, 2015 and the preceding month for a past few years. Defendant No.1 used to pay the plaintiff monthly rent at Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, on perusal of the averments, the Court comes to conclude that the plaint is clear that after December 2015, the rent payable by defendant No.1 to the premises is at Rs.2,500/-, but the Lease Deed even according to the concerned Court nowhere mentions that Rs.2,500/- was the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 rent that was agreed to be paid, but it was Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the obfuscation still exists as to whether the rent was at Rs.2,000/- or Rs.2,500/-. The Court then frames a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the C.P.C., to answer whether the suit is maintainable. The Court then goes on to answer that it is maintainable. 10. A perusal at the order would indicate that the preliminary issue so filed still is shrouded with obfuscation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of RAMAVTAR AGARWAL V. ROSHAN MOTORS1 to buttress his submission that when there is a dispute with regard to jurisdiction, it would become a mixed question of law and fact and the evidence should be permitted to be laid. The High Court of Rajasthan in RAMAVTAR’s Case holds as follows: “…. … …. 1 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2453 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the documents placed on the record and the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that the trial court while deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue has ordered to return the plaint for being presented in the competent court having jurisdiction, relying on the clause contained in the agreement. It further appears that the trial court while deciding the preliminary issue had not permitted the parties to lead the evidence. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that as per Order XIV Rule 2(2), the court could try the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue and dispose of the case on such issue, meaning thereby the court is required to give opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence, for trying the said issue of jurisdiction for being decided as preliminary issue. In the instant case it appears that there were two conditions, one contained in the agreement, which stated that “it is hereby agreed between owners hirer and guarantor that this agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Indore Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore”, and the other condition contained in the printed form of conditions, which stated as under : - “It is agreed between the parties that in case of any dispute arising under this agreement the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be nominated by the owners and the award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all the parties concerned including the Guarantor. The venue of such arbitration shall be in Indore. Save as aforesaid, the court at Bombay alone and no other courts whatsoever will have jurisdiction to try any suit in respect of any claim or dispute arising out of or under this Agreement or in any way relating to the same.” 6. Thus, in view of the above two sets of conditions, it could not be said that there was clarity between the parties or that the parties were at ad idem on the issue of jurisdiction in case of any dispute arising between them. Such an intention of the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of one court alone could gathered only when the documents in question are proved by the parties by leading the evidence. Whether part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Jaipur court or not would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20061 CRP No. 4 of 2020 also be a matter of evidence. The trial court having decided the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue without permitting the parties to lead the evidence on the said issue, the impugned order suffers from illegality and hence deserves to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. I am in respectful agreement with the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. In that light, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the order and permit the petitioner or the parties to the lis to lead evidence with regard to whether the rent was Rs.2,000/- or Rs.2,500/- in support of adequate documents. The petition is allowed. 13. Since the issue is of the year 2016, I direct the parties to appear before the concerned Court on 27.06.2025 and the concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceeding qua the preliminary issue within 2 weeks thereafter and regulate its procedure, thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23/CT: BHK