ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dated 03.03.2021, dismissing I.A.No.785 of 2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, filed under Order XIV Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC to decide the issue whether that Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as a preliminary issue.

2. Heard Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Pending revision, since the petitioner died, his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4, vide orders, dated 02.05.2022, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,30,400/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum.

4. The suit schedule property is a building bearing D.No.11-6-43 consisting of ground and first floor situated in Station Road, Anakapalli. The admitted case of both parties is that the rent in respect of the ground floor is Rs.1900/- and for the first floor Rs.600/-, both making a total of Rs.2500/- per month and the tenancy in respect of both floors, i.e., the plaint schedule property as a whole is unit of tenancy. In this backdrop, the defendant filed I.A.No.552 of 2018 to frame an additional issue questioning the jurisdiction of the civil Court claiming that it is the rent control authority which alone can decide the dispute as per Section 32(c) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Accordingly, the petition was allowed and an additional issue was framed. Thereafter, the present petition is filed to decide the same as a preliminary issue.

5. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter stating that this suit is clubbed with another suit in O.S.No.105 of 2013 which was filed for recovery of damages and for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and both the suits were clubbed for conducting common trial and affidavit in lieu of chief examination was also filed. But the present petition was filed at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that since the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, he cannot insist for trying the issue as a preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction. It is further contended that O.S.No.105 of 2013 was filed for recovery of damages of Rs.4,93,200/-, whereas the present suit is filed for recovery of damages of Rs.4,10,400/- from the defendant, and therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is denied that the authority created under the Act alone has jurisdiction. It is further contended that the petition is filed only to harass the plaintiff who is an old woman.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the issue of jurisdiction can only be taken up on appreciating evidence, but cannot be decided straightaway as a pure question of law touching the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It is further observed that the rent payable is Rs.2,500/- per month but as the plaintiff admitted of having received advance of Rs.15,000/- from the defendant and is refundable on vacating the premises, there is a triable issue with regard to jurisdiction along with other issues, and thus, at this stage, conclusion cannot be arrived at with regard to taking up the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary one. It is also noted that since both suits in O.S.No.105 of 2013 and the present suit O.S.No.112 of 2015 were clubbed for taking up common evide