M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE charter of claim of the landlord-respondent before the Rent Controller seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner is that the petitioner is liable to be ejected on grounds, viz., non-payment of rent and the premises being required for his own use and occupation. It is stated that the premises in dispute is a scheduled building and is in occupation of the lawyer.
(2.) THE petitioner filed his written statement and contended that since the building was a scheduled building, therefore, it could not be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. The arrears of the rent were tendered and the same were accepted though under protest, the tender being invalid. The ground for ejectment for non-payment of rent does not survive. The trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal necessity ? O.P.A. 2. Whether petition is barred by the principle of res judicata ? O.P.R. 3. Whether tender is invalid ? O.P.R. 4. Whether petition is not maintainable ? O.P.R. 5. Whether question of personal necessity cannot be gone into in this case because building in dispute is a scheduled building ? O.P.R."
(3.) THE framing of issues vide the impugned order has been challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner. It was contended that the object of framing issues is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties and narrow down the area of conflict where the two parties to the lis differ. It was urged that in view of the undisputed facts, no issue need be framed on a point of law. The allegations are vague. No issue can be framed. It was urged that the issues have been framed beyond pleadings. Framing of issues is an abuse of the process of the Court in view of the fact that it is admitted that the building is a scheduled building; therefore, no issue with respect to personal necessity can be framed nor the Rent Controller has got jurisdiction to go into the question of personal necessity. It was urged that the disputed building being a scheduled building has been admitted by the respondent before the income-tax authorities. It was urged that since no reasons have been given with respect to the invalidity of the tender, no notice of such a plea can be taken.;