Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by learned Rent Controller vide which an application moved by the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for amendment of the written statement, has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from House No. 3301/21, Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). The petitioner by way of amendment sought to (raise) a plea that house in question was owned by the Government of India and managed by the Cantonment Board which created only occupancy rights in favour of one Lalla Bisheshar Nath. The said Lalla Bisheshar Nath had created a Trust on the premises in question through gift deed dated 20.10.1945 and appointed all eleven trustees to manage the property on behalf of holder of occupancy rights i.e. Lalla Bisheshar Nath. 3. It was claimed that ownership of the building always remained with Government of India and occupancy right holder i.e. Lalla Bisheshar Nath Trust created by him, were only having rights in property on the basis of old grant and they never had the ownership title regarding the premises in question. It was claimed that all the buildings owned by the Government of India/Cantonment Board/Municipal Council/State Government are exempted from the provisions of the Act and as such, no petition for eviction can be filed regarding those buildings, nor Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a petition. It was claimed that house in question also belongs to the Government of India as per general land record, Ambala Cantt. Survey No. 207/2642 dated 5.8.2005. 4. Tenant-petitioner sought to amend his written statement by asserting facts mentioned above, the application was contested. The averments made in the application, was denied. The respondent-landlord further denied that the house in question was owned by the Government of India and managed by the Cantonment Board. 5. Learned Rent Controller was pleased to hold that the application filed by the tenant-petitioner was not maintainable as it was not open to the respondent-landlord to dispute the title of his landlord when he has admitted that he obtained the premises in question on rent from the petitioner/trust. 5. Learned Rent Controller was pleased to hold that the application filed by the tenant-petitioner was not maintainable as it was not open to the respondent-landlord to dispute the title of his landlord when he has admitted that he obtained the premises in question on rent from the petitioner/trust. Learned Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that Rent Act is not applicable only when there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the Government of India. It was further observed that the present application was moved by the respondent with an intention to delay the proceedings of the case unnecessarily. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it was not open to the Rent Controller to have considered the merit of the claim raised in the amendment petition and was only to see whether the amendment was necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 7. Learned counsel also contended that the evidence on record would show that the property was given to the landlord by way of old grant and the ownership continued to vest in the Central Government and therefore, the Trust could not be treated to be the owner of the property in dispute. Therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed, as it deals with jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate the petition filed by respondent-landlord. 8. Mr. Sanjay Vij, counsel for the respondent contends that the amendment sought, has been rightly rejected as it was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that once it was admitted case that premises was taken on rent from the Trust, it was not open to the tenant to deny the title of the landlord. It was also the case of the respondent that even by way of old grant, absolute right has been given to the Trust which has the legal right to enjoy the property as owner thereof. It could not be said that jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is ousted on this ground and therefore, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that present application was an attempt to delay the proceedings is liable to be upheld. 9. It could not be said that jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is ousted on this ground and therefore, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that present application was an attempt to delay the proceedings is liable to be upheld. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent also contends that by way of deed of settlement, the absolute right of ownership has been given to the Trust and therefore it is not a case where the Board would not be entitled to cancel the grant in favour of the Trust. The Rent Controller is not entitled to go into the question of title and right of the parties as the dispute regarding ownership can only be decided by the Civil Court. 10. Section 1(2) of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act stands extended to all urban areas in Haryana except to any cantonment area, and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to deal with the buildings falling in the cantonment area stands ousted. It is, therefore, location of building and not on the basis of ownership of the bodies that the question of jurisdiction is to be decided as is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller would not be ousted merely because the property was owned by the Cantonment Board or by the Trust but is to be considered on basis of the location of the property in dispute. The question of jurisdiction is a question of law and therefore, there was hardly any need for amendment of the written statement to raise plea of jurisdiction. There is no merit in the Civil Revision, which is accordingly, dismissed.