( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the landlord under S. 50 of the, Rent Control Act. It arises on an order mads in appeal u/s. 48 of that Act, by the, Addl Dist judge, Mangalore in HRCA. 83 of 1969. That appeal was by the tenant who was aggrieved by an order of eviction made by the Munsiff at Puttur in HRC. 2 of 1968. ( 2 ) THE landlord sued for eviction in respect of the suit premises on. the ground that the same was required reasonably and bonafide, for his personal use and occupation. Among the pleas taken by the tenant, there was one relative to the non-maintainability of the petition by the landlord on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Control Act could not be availed of by him as the lease related to an agricultural or horiticultural land. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff tried the case on all issues, including the one relative to jurisdiction arising from the pleas adverted to above, and decreed eviction. In appeal by the tenant, the learned Dist Judge, without examining all the points in controversy, merely held that the order of the munsiff was vitiated in thai the procedure adopted by him in the disposal of the case had been erroneous, in that he had failed to try the issue bearing on the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary one. In doing so, he almost exclusively relied on a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Narayana Rai v. Appaji Rao, (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 370. In this view, he set aside the order in appeal and remitted the matter to the trial Court for a fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by him. It is the, correctness of this order that has been questioned in the present revision. ( 4 ) IN my judgment, this order cannot be upheld. The learned appellate Jugde has also placed reliance on certain observations of the Supreme court in Express Newspapers v. Workers, AIR 1963 SC. 589 . which have been excerpted in Norayana Rai's case (1), in support of the said conclusion of his. In my opinion, both the decisions are distinguishable, on facts and, therefore, inapplicable to the case on hand. The learned appellate Jugde has also placed reliance on certain observations of the Supreme court in Express Newspapers v. Workers, AIR 1963 SC. 589 . which have been excerpted in Norayana Rai's case (1), in support of the said conclusion of his. In my opinion, both the decisions are distinguishable, on facts and, therefore, inapplicable to the case on hand. ( 5 ) IN Narayana Rai's case (1), this Court was concerned with an order, whereby an application to try an issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary one had been rejected for certain reasons which it is unnecessary to recount for my present purpose. The case had yet to be disposed of on merits by recording findings on all issues arising therein. It was in these circumstances that the Court came to the conclusion, more or less that the Court below had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and the discretion exercised had been improper. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, although a plea regarding jurisdiction had been raised in the context of certain allegations of fact by the opponent-tenant there had been no specific application, presumably under Rule 2 of Or. 14, cpc read with rule 35 of the Rent Control Rules, requesting for the trial, of such an issue as a preliminary one. Moreover, the parties, without a specific demurrer by the tenant in this behalf, have gone through the trial of the case. Further, it is a fairly well-established principle that having regard to the language of Rule 2 of Or. 14 CPC, a Court is bound to decide whether or not an, issue could be tried as a preliminary issue at the time of the settlement of issues itself, and mat perhaps do so at a subsequent stage In its discretion, to be, exercised judicially in the light of all the circumstances available a,t that point of time. In the instant case, none of these circumstances have been shown to exist. In this view, the procedure followed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with, as has been done by the appellate Court. The order impugned herein cannot therefore, be said to be well founded and correct. In the instant case, none of these circumstances have been shown to exist. In this view, the procedure followed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with, as has been done by the appellate Court. The order impugned herein cannot therefore, be said to be well founded and correct. ( 7 ) IN the case of Express Newspapers (2), the observations on which reliance has' been paced on behalf of the respondent, read thus:" It is also true that even if the dispute is tried by the Industrial tribunal, at the very comencement the 'industrial Tribunal will have to examine as a preliminary issue the question as to whether the dispute referred to it is an industrial dispute or not, and the decision of this question would inevitably depend upon the view which the industrial Tribunal may take as to whether the action taken by the appellant is a closure or a lockout. The finding which the, Industrial tribunal may record on this preliminary issue will decide whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute or not. If the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a closures there would be an end to the proceedings before the Tribunal so far as the main dispute is concerned. If, on the other hand, the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a lockout which has been disguised as a closure, then the Tribunal will be entitled to deal with the reference. The finding which the Tribunal may make on, this preliminary issue is a finding on the jurisdictional fact and it is only when the jurisdictional fact is found against the appellant that the Industrial tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute. This position is also not in dispute. "it is clear from the above observations that the Court was concerned with the procedure followed by an Industrial Tribunal when dealing with a question of determination of a jurisdictional fact which it was necessary to decide before the Tribunal could proceed to determine the reference. Further, it is a matter of some doubt, whether under the Industrial disputes Act and Rules the, provisions of Rule 2 of Or. 14 have been made applicable to proceedings before a Tribunal, functioning thereunder. At any rate, nothing has been brought to my notice in this regard. Further, it is a matter of some doubt, whether under the Industrial disputes Act and Rules the, provisions of Rule 2 of Or. 14 have been made applicable to proceedings before a Tribunal, functioning thereunder. At any rate, nothing has been brought to my notice in this regard. For all these reasons, I dp not think it as correct to apply the principles enunciated therein in a proceeding of the present nature under the Rent Control Act, although it is reasonable to posit that a Court functioning under that Act exercises a limited jurisdiction. No other contention was urged. ( 8 ) IN the result, this petition deserves to be accepted and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the appellate Court for a fresh disposal of the appeal on merits. No Costs. --- *** --- .