ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.10.2015 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.491/2012. 2. The respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.491/2012 seeking possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendant. The petitioner herein who is the defendant has filed the written statement to the said suit disputing the ownership to the property and also contending that a suit of the present nature is not maintainable. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) contending that since the present suit is barred under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short), the plaint be rejected. The said application was opposed. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has passed the order impugned dated 06.10.2015. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 4. The contentions on behalf of the petitioner is the reiteration of the contentions which had been put forth before the Court below while seeking rejection of the plaint and has been adverted to by the learned Judge of the Court below. A perusal of the order would disclose that the said contention with reference to Section 2(3) (e) and (g) of the Act as contended has been taken note by referring to an earlier decision of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in view of said provision contained in Section 2(3)(e) and (g) of the Act, the rent in respect of a premises which measures less than 14 sq.mts and the rent of which is less than Rs.2,000/-, a petition under Section 27 of the Act alone would be maintainable. It is in that light contended that in the instant case, the premises measures 7ft X 6ft each and the rent is at Rs.1,500/- as stated in the plaint. In that view, it is contended that each of the premises is less then 14 sq.mts. but the respondents have deliberately clubbed two of the premises to make it more than 14 sq.mts and the rent to be more than Rs.2,000/- and have accordingly filed the suit. In that view, it is contended that each of the premises is less then 14 sq.mts. but the respondents have deliberately clubbed two of the premises to make it more than 14 sq.mts and the rent to be more than Rs.2,000/- and have accordingly filed the suit. It is also his contention that the property in fact is a Wakf property and there is a dispute between the respondents herein and the Board of Wakf and as such even under that circumstance, until the ownership of the property is decided, the present suit seeking possession would not be maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would however seek to refer to the order passed by the Court below and in that light would contend that the Court below has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and has arrived at its conclusion which does not call for interference. 6. In the light of the contentions, firstly with regard to the size of the property, it is seen that though the boundaries have been indicated in the Schedule-A to the plaint, the indication of the total extent has been mentioned therein. The property bears a single revenue number viz., CTS No.2108-C. If that be the position, though two small wooden units measuring 7ft x 6ft is in occupation of the petitioner herein, since the tenant is the same and the same are adjoining to each other with a single number, certainly a petition of the said nature at this stage cannot be rejected based on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) inasmuch as these are matters of evidence which will have to be ultimately decided. 7. Insofar as the contention that the property is a Wakf property, in fact the respondents themselves have pleaded in the suit that they had instituted a suit in O.S.No.19/2002. In the said suit, a declaration has been granted in favour of the respondents herein. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said judgment therein has been assailed before this Court by the Board of Wakf and the same is pending consideration, if at all the judgment is reversed subsequently by this Court, certainly it would be open for the petitioner herein to bring it to the notice of the Court below. 8. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said judgment therein has been assailed before this Court by the Board of Wakf and the same is pending consideration, if at all the judgment is reversed subsequently by this Court, certainly it would be open for the petitioner herein to bring it to the notice of the Court below. 8. For the present, when there is a declaration in O.S.No.19/2002 and admittedly the said judgment has not been stayed, there would be no impediment to proceed with the case. 9. Therefore for all these reasons, in any event, it was not a case where the Court below was required to entertain an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC and reject the plaint. Even if the contentions of the petitioner are taken note of, these are all matters which would arise for consideration based on the evidence that would be tendered by the parties and thereafter a factual finding would have to be recorded by the Court below and thereafter a conclusion will have to be reached. Hence, at this juncture, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned herein. Notwithstanding the same, based on the contentions that have been raised, the Court below shall frame a point for consideration in that regard and based on the evidence that is tendered, an ultimate conclusion may be reached at that stage without the present observations in the impugned order weighing in the mind of the Court below. Therefore with the said observations, the petition stands disposed of.