R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is second appeal against confirming judgment and decree dated 7-1-1999 of Ilnd Additional District Judge, balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 54-A of 1998. The trial Court had ordered eviction of the appellant/ tenant in favour of respondent/landlord. The landlord was found to be a public trust under the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, the appellant had allegedly taken a piece of land measuring 15 ft. x 15 ft. on a rent of Rs. 20a per month from the landlord and built a kaccha Jhopda on it and started running furniture business. It had been agreed to vacate the land as and when required by the trust. The defendant even encroached on some adjoining land which was shown in the site plan filed with the plaint. The landlords needs it for their own purposes and for the purposes of the trust. So the suit for eviction was filed from the tenanted area as well as the encroached area. ( 2 ) THE defendant/appellant had denied the ownership of the trust and alleged to have taken the and on rent from one Motila! and that the tenanted area was 25 ft. x 23 ft. He denied any encroachment. The trial Court as well as the fist Appellate Court found the objections of the defendant as without any merit and substance. The public trust was found to have let out a portion and rest was encroachment. Decree for eviction was passed and it was confirmed by the Appellate Court. ( 3 ) THE only point raised in the grounds of second appeal is that provisions of M. P. Accommodation Control Act were not applicable to this disputed premises as was held by the Courts below so no decree for eviction or possession could have been passed without notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel was given time to support his argument by any authority or pronouncement. Admittedly, there was no defence plea that no notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act was issued by plaintiff to defendant. Such plea was not taken even before the first Appellate Court. There was no issue on the same. Such a plea cannot allowed to be taken at the stage of Second Appeal for the first time. A plea of issuing notice under section 106. Such plea was not taken even before the first Appellate Court. There was no issue on the same. Such a plea cannot allowed to be taken at the stage of Second Appeal for the first time. A plea of issuing notice under section 106. Transfer of Property Act could be waived by the tenant, if not taken. Such plea is deemed to have been waived. It is always a question of fact whether notice under section 106, Transfer of Property Act was required or was given in a particular case unless issue is raised in defence, no evidence is required to be load on such an issue. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that this is a legal objection, and can be raised at any stage of appeal, is unacceptable. The objection as to necessity of notice and whether it was given or not is a mixed plea of fact and law. It is more of facts which may be borne out from the fact established on record and on the pleadings. No such plea was raised. There is no prima facie substance in this second appeal. The same is not admitted and is dismissed as no question of law arises. Second appeal dismissed. .