Judgment :- 1. The defendants in two suits O.S.Nos.293 and 303 of 1983 of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in the second appeals. The suit is for eviction. As quite often happens in such cases, the substantial contention taken and pursued was about the inadequency of the notice in terminating the tenancy. That plea was concurrently dismissed by the courts below. The notice terminating the tenancy was issued on 13-12-1982. Surrender was demanded on 1-2-1983. The tenancy was a monthly one. The courts below found, and rightly in my view, that there was proper and valid notice. 2. The only other contention urged related to the protection under the Rent Control Act, and the irregularity in the verification of the plaint. As for the former, there was a notification under the Rent Control Act, exempting buildings which constitute wakf property from the provisions of the Act. There was no challenge to the notification as such. The courts below noted the notification, and gave effect to it. That action cannot be faulted. 3. The alleged irregularity in the verification of the plaint was also found to be of no substance. There is no scope for interference with that finding. 4. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs could not institute the suit at all in that form. This is not a contention which has been taken in the courts below. As regards O.S.No.293 of 1983 there is not even an issue touching that aspect of the case. Even in O'.S.No.303 of 1983, issue No.1 really revetted the attention on the disqualification of the persons who verified the plaint. It was not reflective of a controversy in relation to the frame of the suit. The attempt to project such a plea for the first time in the second appeal, cannot be, permitted. Questions which are allowed to lie over for long period after the institution of the suit could not be enthusiastically entertained for the first time in the second appeal. 5. Yet another contention, urged again for the first time in the second appeal, related to the invalidity of the notification on the ground that the notification was issued in negation of the principles of natural justice. For reasons already indicated, this plea cannot be entertained for the first time now. Even otherwise it is devoid of merit. 5. Yet another contention, urged again for the first time in the second appeal, related to the invalidity of the notification on the ground that the notification was issued in negation of the principles of natural justice. For reasons already indicated, this plea cannot be entertained for the first time now. Even otherwise it is devoid of merit. Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in B. Ravinder v. Spl. Dy. Collector, LA. (Industries), A.I.R.1981 A.P.386. The wide proposition, with great respect, does not, according to me, agree with reason, the history of legislation, and the course of decisions sketching the ambit and scope of the principles of natural justice. Doubtless the principles of natural justice, underwent a perceptible change in its perspective after Menaka Gandhi's case. Similar trends, are visible in other climes. Lord Pearce referred to it as the most glorious development in English jurisprudence. Those scintillating experiences in the jurisprudential field and judicial administration, should not, however, obfuscate the observations in relation to fundamentals. Under the pristine property law, tenancy is a terminable one. Statutes can step in forging fetters on the rights of the landlord. It has done so in the present case by the enactment on the Rent Control which among others, constricts the eviction exercises. However, the very enactment, under which such a benefit had been conferred, contains an inbuilt provision, which provides a safety valve. An exemption provision is one such. That provision is as much part of the statutory scheme. It cannot be said that one section gave benefit and the other was intended to take away the benefit. The statute gave a package deal. When the self-same statute conferred on the Government the power to issue exemption notification, there is no question of deprivation of any vested right nor of any visitation of adverse civil consequences. 6. I feel that the proposition propounded by the Andhra High Court; is fraught with grave consequences and generates constitutional impossibilities. In an era of plethoric legislation, exemption clauses are indicated, to provide for the contingencies un-anticipatable even with the widest legislative wisdom. To insist that the multitude of beneficiaries of legislation should he heard initially, as a condition before the exercise of a statutory legislative power, is a fallacious proposition on the face of it. The contention is rejected on merit, as well. In the result, the second appeals are dismissed.