Judgment B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4/12/1999 passed by the first appellate court, by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6/3/1993, by which the learned trial court decreed the suit and passed the order of eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises. ( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents in 1988 for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the grounds that he was introduced as a tenant by the monthly oral lease of Rs. 50/- w. e. f. 8/2/1979 and he was to pay the electric charges separately. On 1/11/1988, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 60. 00- p. m. and on 1/8/1983, it was enhanced to rs. 70. 00 p. m. The defendant-appellant paid the agreed rent upto 13/11/1983. Subsequent thereto, he had not made any payment towards the rent and the electric charges had been paid only upto 31-1-1984. On being asked to vacate the suit premises, the defendant-appellant did not vacate it, therefore, a notice dated 20-5-1988 was sent to him and inspite of service, he did not vacate the house nor made payment of arrears of rent and the electric charges. The suit was filed for his eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of rs. 3,615/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Defendant-appellant contested the suit on various grounds and contended that the agreed rent was Rs. 20- p. m. and it was later on enhanced to Rs. 30/- p. m. though he was to pay the electric charges separately. He also took the plea that the notice was defective, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) AFTER considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues, namely, (1) whether there was an oral lease w. e. f. 8-2-1979 at the rate of Rs. 50/-p. m. ; (2) whether plaintiff-respondents were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,615/- as arrears of rent from the defendant-appellant; (3) whether the suit was not maintainable for the reason that the firm was not registered; and (4) whether the plaintiff was not the owner of the house and, thus, not competent to institute the suit. 50/-p. m. ; (2) whether plaintiff-respondents were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,615/- as arrears of rent from the defendant-appellant; (3) whether the suit was not maintainable for the reason that the firm was not registered; and (4) whether the plaintiff was not the owner of the house and, thus, not competent to institute the suit. The learned trial court allowed the parties to lead evidence and after appreciating the same, issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents; issue No. 3 was decided observing that the plaintiff was a registered firm and, thus, the suit was maintainable; and on issue No. 4, it was held that though the property belonged to the firm but plaintiff, being a pertner. was entitled to maintain the suit. In view of the above, the suit was decreed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-12-1999. Hence this second appeal. ( 4 ) SO far as the aforesaid four issues are concerned, Mr. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the appellant, has not raised any grievance. On all these issues, there are concurrent findings of facts and the same do not require any interference in the second appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Kachhawaha has raised the submission that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was not applicable on the suit property being situated outside the municipal limits of Sojat Road. There had been pleadings anywhere in the courts below, nor any evidence was led thereon. Even before this Court, no documentary evidence has been produced in support of this submission. Merely raising a ground in the second appeal is not sufficient for agitating such a serious issue. ( 6 ) IT is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. ( 6 ) IT is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat singh v. State of Haryana, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :-"in our opinion, when a point, which is obstansibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between hearing under the Code of Civil procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i. e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. "similar view has been reiterated in Larsen and tubro v. State of Gujarat; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Union of India and Ors. ; Ram narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. ; Chitra kumari v. Union of India and Ors. ; and State of U. P. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey. In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan singh, the Honble Apex Court observed as under :. "the findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law. " in Ram Khilona and Ors. v. Sardar and ors. , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :-"it appears that the High Court has decided the second appeal on a question neither taken in the memorandum of appeal nor taken in that form before the courts before and has upset the concurrent decisions of the courts on a finding recorded by it. v. Sardar and ors. , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :-"it appears that the High Court has decided the second appeal on a question neither taken in the memorandum of appeal nor taken in that form before the courts before and has upset the concurrent decisions of the courts on a finding recorded by it. The approach of the high Court in the second appeal was clearly againt the law and spirit of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. " ( 7 ) WHETHER the said Act was applicable on the suit property or not, is a question of fact and, thus, cannot be entertained at this stage. Moreso, Section 57 of the Evidence Act requires taking judicial notice of any fact or law which the parties or their counsel produce before the court. Mr. Kachhawaha has not produced any document whatsoever in support of this submission. In such an eventuality, there is no obligation on the part of the court to entertain this issue, particularly in view of the fact that this issue had not been agitated in the courts below. (Vide M/s. Chandra Filling service v. Ram Prasad ). ( 8 ) IT has furher been urged by Mr. Kachhawaha that the notice was defective and, thus, the suit was liable to be rejected on this ground. Undoubtedly, a very vague plea had been taken in the written statement by the defendant-appellant but neither the issue had been framed nor it has been pressed in the trial court as a defence. Even in the memorandum of appeal before the first appellate court, this ground has not been taken. In absence of any specific pleading as how the notice was defective and on what ground it could be de-dared to be defective, such a plea cannot be entertained. Parties cannot be permitted to take vague pleas in the written statement and in absence of pressing the same before the court below, they cannot be permitted to agitate the issue first time in the second appeal. As the defendant-appellant failed to plead its case before the courts below on this issue, I am not inclined to entertain this plea in the second appeal. ( 9 ) THERE are concurrent findings of facts. No substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Appeal dismissed.