Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) The respondent after getting employment with the petitioner was allotted the house in dispute. She was dismissed by the petitioner on 1st Aug., 1968. Thereafter three notices were issued by the petitioner-employer, namely A.W.1 on 6th Nov., 1968, AW1/9 dated 23rd Dec., 1968 and AW 1/16 dated 13th June, 1969, for vacation of the premises. As the premises were not vacated, eviction application was filed under Sec. 13 of the Rent Restrictions Act and the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 16th Aug., 1972. However, appeal by the respondent succeeded and the eviction application was rejected. It is this order of the Appellate Authority which has been challenged in this revision petition.
(2.) It is not disputed that a dispute was raised by the respondent for being referred to the Industrial Tribunal regarding the dismissal order passed by the petitioner. But the Government did not think it a fit case for referring the same to the Industrial Tribunal. Thus the order of dismissal became final. In view of the same provision as embodied in Sec. 13(3)(a)(i) (d) of the Rent Act is not attracted and the respondent was liable to be evicted after the order of dismissal had become final. However, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction on the ground that according to the allotment rules framed by the employer petitioner the necessary decision had not been taken by its Managing Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no such objection pertaining to the compliance of the allotment rules had been taken by the respondent in her written statement.
(3.) In reply reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the averments made in para 10 of the written statement. I closely perused the said para. I do not make any reference to non-compliance of the allotment rules. The objection pertains only to the notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court, notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary objection pertaining to the non-compliance of the allotment rules had not been taken by the respondent the petitioner had no opportunity to reply to the same. Hence it is not open to the counsel for the respondent to go outside the pleadings and seek protection under the allotment rules. Consequently the revision petition is allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.;