- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller, Bhatinda, dated June 14, 1976. by which he refused to frame an issue on the question as to whether a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was necessary to be served on the tenant.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Bhagwan Dass, landlord, instituted an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Mahatma Hans Raj High School, tenant, in the Court of Rent Controller, Bhatinda. In the written statement an objection was taken by the tenant that no notice under section 106 of the Act was served upon it before filing the application. At the time of framing the issues, the counsel for the respondent made a statement that be did not press the objection on the ground of want of notice under section 106 of the Act and the same be waived off. On account of that statement the trial Court framed other issues, but did not frame any issue regarding notice under section 106 of the Act. The tenant thereafter filed an application on the same day before the Rent Controller that an issue be framed on the aforesaid matter. The application was contested by the landlord. After bearing the learned counsel for the parties, the application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The tenant has come up in revision petition against that order to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the tenant that the tenant had raised plea regarding non-service of the notice under section 106 of the Act and it was by a slip of tongue that a statement was made by the counsel that he did not press the objection. He argues that on the same day he made an application for framing the issue. According to the learned counsel, the issue being a legal issue, the application should not have been declined by the Rent Controller. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that as the objection had been given up, this plea no longer existed in the written statement and subsequently the tenant could not make an application for framing of an issue on that plea.;