JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, J. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the revisionist has been rejected by order dated 1.12.2015 which is sought to be challenged on the ground that the JSCC i.e. the Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut had no jurisdiction to proceed with the SCC Suit No. 57 of 2013 inasmuch as the actual rent of the disputed accommodation is only Rs. 500/-. The plaintiff had quoted a wrong rate of rent i.e. Rs. 2200/- just to maintain this suit and to assert that the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the premises in question is exempted under Section 2 (g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. This issue raised before the Court below can be decided after appreciation of the evidence of both the parties. 3. It is reflected from the order impugned that the evidence of plaintiff has been concluded on 20.1.2014, thereafter nine dates were fixed for the evidence of the revisionist, despite that he did not lay his evidence. 4. The Court below has rejected the application for rejection of plaint filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the objection of the revisionist could only be decided after appreciation of the evidence on record. It is admitted by the revisionist that no evidence was led by him on 21.12.2015, which was the last date fixed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any error in the order. The question of jurisdiction raised by the revisionist-defendant can very well be examined by the Court in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant submits that the revisionist shall lead his evidence on the next date fixed which is 20th January, 2016. 7. In view thereof, it is directed that the Court below shall proceed and decide the issue of jurisdiction first before proceeding with the matter on merits. 8. With observations and directions made above, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.