Judgment Heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Judgment-Debtor (J.D) who has analogously filed a Revision petition as well as Second Appeal, to challenge the ejectment decree passed against them. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Decree-Holders (D.Hs). 2. The Title Suit No. 44/2005 was filed for ejectment and khas possession with the plea of rent default and bona fide requirement. It was pleaded that the defendant failed to pay the rent despite demand and the plaintiffs required the shop premises for use of their two sons. 3. The defendant filed written statement (W.S) with the plea that rent was paid regularly and when the tendered rent was refused by the landlord, the rent was deposited in Court. The general plea of non-maintainability of the suit was also advanced by the defendant. 3. on the basis of the pleadings, the following Issues were framed– “1. Whether there is cause of action in the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and fact? 3. Whether the defendant is defaulted to pay rent for the suit premises? 4. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required to the plaintiffs? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties for non-joining of all the legal heirs of the plaintiff No. 3? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree as prayed for? 7. Whether any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to? 4. The 1st two issues relating to cause of action and maintainability of the suit was answered in the affirmative. On the 3rd issue pertaining to rent default, the Trial Court on the basis of evidence noted that the rent was not deposited in Court in due time after the alleged refusal and accordingly the tenant was declared to be a defaulter. On the bona fide requirement pleaded for establishment of business by the sons, the plea of the landlord was accepted by the Court. With these conclusions, the ejectment suit was decreed on 4.5.2010 (Annexure-C) by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh. 5. The aggrieved defendant then filed the Title Appeal No. 18/2010 and after due consideration the Appellate Court upheld the ejectment decree. 6. Mr. With these conclusions, the ejectment suit was decreed on 4.5.2010 (Annexure-C) by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh. 5. The aggrieved defendant then filed the Title Appeal No. 18/2010 and after due consideration the Appellate Court upheld the ejectment decree. 6. Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned Senior Counsel representing the J.D contends that since the tenanted property is located in a non-urban area in Moran township, the provision of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) is inapplicable and therefore it is argued that a jurisdictional error was committed in ordering ejectment from a non-urban property, under the Rent Act. The Counsel relies on the landlord’s objection filed on 14.7.2009 (Annexure-A) to the tenant’s application for repairing of the tenanted premises to project that, the landlords themselves submitted that the shop premises is situated in Moran Mouza and such area is non-urban area, as defined under Section 2(g) of the Rent Act. 6. Representing the plaintiffs (landlords), Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel however argues that the defendant never pleaded as to how and under what facts, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. He further argues that unless the defendant specifies through his pleadings on how the suit is not maintainable, the Court is not obliged to make a roving enquiry to adjudicate an unpleaded maintainability issue. 7. In the W.S., the defendant did generally plead that the suit is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. But there was no specific pleading on the inapplicability of the Rent Act for the tenanted premises located in non-urban area. In fact only with the Memo of Appeal filed before the Civil Judge, the defendant took this ground. 8. In the present case, the defendant took recourse to Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the Rent Act to deposit rent in Court and therefore the tenant indirectly accepted the applicability of the Rent Act for the suit in question. More importantly in the absence of any pleadings, neither the Court nor the plaintiffs were made aware by the defendant on how the suit was not maintainable. 9. More importantly in the absence of any pleadings, neither the Court nor the plaintiffs were made aware by the defendant on how the suit was not maintainable. 9. On the issue of absence of pleadings, the Supreme Court in Bhagat Singh vs. Jaswant Singh reported in AIR 1966 SC 1861 observed that the Objector must plead and prove his case and placing reliance on the Privy Council decision in AIR 1930 PC 57 (Siddik Mahomed Shah vs. Mt. Saran), the Court observed that “where a claim has been never made in the defence presentation no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward”. 10. Similarly in Sachindra Nath Shah vs. Santosh Kumar Bhattacharya reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 657, it was declared by the Apex Court that unless a plea is taken and urged, specific issue is framed on the basis of such plea, a ground can’t be permitted to be argued at the first instance, before the High Court. 11. Confronted with the above proposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the J.D. has argued that a legal plea on inapplicability of the Rent Act can always be raised even in absence of any specific pleading by the party. For answer to this argument we can usefully rely on Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke vs. Oriental Fire & General Issuance Co. Ltd. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 622 . In this case, the Apex Court declared as follows:- “……………… We have no hesitation to hold that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the finding given by the trial court, specially in view of the said specific plea taken in the written statement. The High Court felt that since it is a legal matter, it could be adjudicated notwithstanding a different stand in its pleading. This approach was not proper. Once a stand in fact is taken, that fact could not be controverted by any legal proposition. In the present case, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to dissolve the stand taken in the written statement that it was done by mistake nor was there any application to amend such pleadings. In view of this, the High Court was not correct to decide the issue through legal inferences dehors of and without adverting to the glaring facts on the records. In view of this, the High Court was not correct to decide the issue through legal inferences dehors of and without adverting to the glaring facts on the records. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirm that of the trial court. The present appeal is accordingly allowed, costs on the parties. …………………………” 12. In a civil suit each party must plead their own case to ensure that the other party is not caught by surprise. Moreover the case must not only be pleaded but evidence should be led and the issue be argued. But in the instant case, the objection in the W.S. was vague and of general nature and specific plea on inapplicability of the Rent Act for the tenanted premises in Moran township wasn’t ever raised by the defendant. 13. When the landlord filed their objection on 14.7.2009 in the Misc.(J) Case No.34/2009, the defendant could have amended his W.S. to incorporate the specific plea. In that event the parties would be on notice on the issue to be adjudicated by the Court. But unfortunately such specific plea was never raised either in the W.S. or through amendment of the W.S. and is being urged for the first time in the High Court. In this context I feel that merely because a point is taken in the Title Appeal and written arguments are given, unless the point is urged, no adjudication can be expected by the party who fail to raise the plea and argue the point. 14. In view of the ratio in Bhagat Singh (supra), Sachindra Nath Shah (supra) and Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke (supra), in the absence of pleading, the Court can’t be expected to give decision on applicability of the Rent Act to the tenanted premises, on the ground now urged by the J.D. before this Court. For this reason, neither perversity nor jurisdictional error is noticed with the impugned verdicts. Moreover on the basis of the pleaded case, no substantial question of law arise for consideration of the Court. For this reason, the Revision Petition and the Second Appeal are dismissed without any order on cost.