A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Chandra Prakash Srivastava, Advocate instructed by Shri A. N. Sinha, Advocate argued that in the instant case, plaint did not contain cause of action Inasmuch as it was not pleaded that tenancy was determined by the notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act (for short called TPA ). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no amount of evidence could cure the defect caused by absence of necessary pleading upon which depended the Jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice under section 106 of the Act dated 12th September 1994 has not been proved and neither in the plaint it is stated that by said notice tenancy was determined. According to him, an absence of pleading giving cause of action to the plaintiff, suit against the tenant was not maintainable. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has filed supplementary affidavit annexing copy of Memorandum of revision, notice under Section 106 of the Act and copy of affidavit dated 16th November, 1996 filed by the plaintiff in support of his case. ( 3 ) PERUSAL of the notice (Annexure-lii to the supplementary affidavit) shows that there is averment to the effect that tenancy of the ten ant-petitioner was determined and he was required to handover possession on expiry of thirty days (particular page 21 of the supplementary affidavit ). Copy of the plaint has been filed as (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). Para 5 of the plaint shows that requisite pleadings are contained therein. Cause of action has also been pleaded in the plaint. Objection on this score is misconceived and cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) THE second submission of the petitioner that no evidence could be led in absence of necessary pleadings has got no force. ( 5 ) APART from the above, the petitioner challenged Judgment and order dated 18th November 1996 passed by Judge Small Causes Court (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) whereby he was directed to handover possession and pay arrears etc. , to the plaintiff. ( 6 ) AGAINST it, revision No. 8 of 1996 under Section 25. Provincial Small Causes Court Act was filed before the Court of District Judge. Allahabad (Memorandum of revision has been filed as annexure-Il to the supplementary affidavit ). , to the plaintiff. ( 6 ) AGAINST it, revision No. 8 of 1996 under Section 25. Provincial Small Causes Court Act was filed before the Court of District Judge. Allahabad (Memorandum of revision has been filed as annexure-Il to the supplementary affidavit ). Perusal of the Memorandum of revision (particular pages 15 to 18 of the supplementary affidavit) shows that there is no objection/ground, which is now raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all objections are covered by residual ground which reads : "d. Because the judgment and decree is illegal improper and irregular and liable to be set aside. " ( 8 ) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that said ground embraces in itself the objection now raised by the petitioner. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. No specific ground having been taken in the Memorandum of Revision regarding absence of pleading in the plaint or want of legal notice under Section 106, -TPA. the said plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the time of arguments in the writ petition. The defendant-petitioner not having raised a plea and Judgment in revision being rendered, cannot take advantage of his own lapse. There is no dearth of decisions of this Court as well as of Apex Court on the point. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain plea can be raised at any stage notwithstanding whether said plea was raised and pressed before the Court below. ( 10 ) IT is settled that plea concerning Jurisdiction or pure question of law and which do not require evidence can be raised at subsequent stage also. In the instant case, however, I do not find that objections as such go to the root of the jurisdiction. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then urged that the case was heard by trial court on a date which was not fixed for hearing. The submission regarding case being heard on date not fixed by the Court within the knowledge of the party is a bald averment inasmuch as I find no ground or basis to substantiate the same. The submission regarding case being heard on date not fixed by the Court within the knowledge of the party is a bald averment inasmuch as I find no ground or basis to substantiate the same. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client [petitioner) submitted that he shall peacefully handover vacant possession to the plaintiff-landlord in case his possession is protected for a reasonable time. On undertaking to this Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from accommodation in question and he shall vacate and deliver peaceful vacant possession to the landlord-respondent his nominees, assignee etc. , on or before 31st March. 2000. subject to the following conditions : 1. The tenant-petitioner files before concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 31st October, 1999, an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter : 2. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months i. e. . up to 31st March 2000. Tenant-petitioner, her representative/assignee, etc. , claiming through her or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 31st March. 2000 to the landlord or landlords nominee/representative (if any, appointed and Intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A. D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned Prescribed authority), time and date on which landlord is to take possession from the tenant. 3. Petitioner shall on or before 31st October, 1999 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. , up to date, i. e. . entire arrears of the past. If any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 3ist March. 2000. 4. Petitioner and everyone claiming under her undertake not to change or damage or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. 5. in case tenant-petitioner falls to comply with any of the conditions/or directions contained in this order. landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioner forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned prescribed authority. 6. If there is violation of the undertaking of anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order, the defaulting parly shall pay Rs. landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioner forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned prescribed authority. 6. If there is violation of the undertaking of anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order, the defaulting parly shall pay Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages to the other party besides rendering himself/herself-liable to be prosecuted for committing grossest contempt of the Court. Writ Petition stands dismissed subject to the conditions Indicated in the body of the judgment. No order as to costs. .