JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgement and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar dated August 29, 1967, in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of the Fort situated at Fatehpur (Shekhawati). The plaintiff came with the case that the suit premises were let out to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 29.35. When the defendants did not make payment of the rent of the suit premises, the plaintiff served a notice terminating the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. When, in spite of the notice, the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff brought the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 821.80. The plaintiff also sought eviction of the defendants on the ground that the defendants had made defaults in payment of rent within the meaning of section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. They however impliedly admitted that the suit premises were let out to them by the plaintiff. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the trial court:- 1- vk;k izfroknhx.ku tk;nkn eqrnkfo;k ij oknh;k dh vksj ls 29 :0 35 is ekgokj fdjk;s ij vkckn gS vkSj fdjk;snkjh gj vaxzstksa eghus dh igyh rkjh[k ls 'kq: gksrh gSA 2- vk;k izfroknhxu oknh;k ls fdjk;s dk foy vxzhe jlhn] Qs;jjsUV lfVZfQdsV] udy eq[rkjukek o gLrkUrju i= izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh mls fdjk;k vnk djus ds ftEesnkj Fks vkSj mUgksaus fdjk;k vnk;xh esa fMQkYV ugha fd;k gSA 3- vk;k izfroknhxu dks fdjk;snkjh mfpr uksfVl nsdj lekIr dj nh xbZ gSA 4- vk;k oknh;k 821:0 80 iSlk fd;jk ds x< [kkyh djk;s tkus dks fMdzh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh.kh gSA 5- i{kdkj fdl lgk;rk ds vf/kdkjh gSA 4. The trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendants went in appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sikar, but without any success. The defendants have now preferred this second appeal. 5. Arguing the appeal, Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, has raised the following points in this appeal:- 1. The defendants went in appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sikar, but without any success. The defendants have now preferred this second appeal. 5. Arguing the appeal, Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, has raised the following points in this appeal:- 1. That the trial court committed error in not framing any issue on the point whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 2. That the plaintiff respondent could not have filed the suit against the appellants because if at all there existed relationship of landlord and tenant, it was between the plaintiff and the State of Rajasthan. The suit was therefore not maintainable against the defendants and no decree could be passed against the defendants. 3. That the trial court committed grave error in not framing any issue on the important question raised in the written statement, namely, that a notification was published in the Government gazette declaring the said Fort to be a protected monument and it was therefore not open to the plaintiff to file this suit specially when proceedings for compensation had taken place. 6. I may first take up the first point raised by Mr. K.C. Bhandari. 7. In paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that a portion of the Fort belonging to the plaintiff was let out to the defendants on monthly rental of Rs. 29.35. In reply to this paragraph, the defendants, in their written statement, admitted that they had taken the portion of the Fort on rent. In respect of the other facts mentioned in paragraph No. 1, the defendants denied them on account of their ignorance about those facts. It is apparent that the statements did not specifically deny in the written statement that the suit premises did not belong to the plaintiff and further that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. In absence of any specific denial as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was not necessary to frame any issue on the point. That apart, no application was moved before the trial court to frame such an issue. Not only that, this point was not even raised before the courts below. In absence of any specific denial as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was not necessary to frame any issue on the point. That apart, no application was moved before the trial court to frame such an issue. Not only that, this point was not even raised before the courts below. Above all, the point is covered by issue No. 1 and it is wrong to say that no issue was framed. 8. Turning to the second point, suffice it to say that no plea was raised that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit against the State of Rajasthan and not against the defendants. This point was neither raised before the trial court nor before the lower appellate court. This plea involves a mixed question of law and fact. It is well settled that a plea involving a mixed question of law and fact and depending on fresh investigation of facts will not be allowed to be taken up for the first time in the second appeal. 9. Again; there is no substance in the third point. It is alleged that the demised premises belonged to the Government in as much as a Notification has been published declaring the said Fort to be a protected monuments. Under section 116 of the Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord during the continuance of the tenancy. That being the settled law, even if no issue was framed on the point, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the defendants. Even if such an issue had been framed, it would have been of no consequence or assistance to the defendants. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. As the respondent was not even called upon to answer, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. *******