1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-8-1991 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Union of India had given land Survey No. 21 measuring 1.58 acres to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent as licence under old grant for the purpose of constructing a building. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent constructed a bungalow on the said land. Subsequently, the Union of India was inducted in the said building as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 64/-. It appears that in the year 1972. Union of India served a notice on the predecessor-in-interest of respondent for resuming the land on which the predecessor-in-interest of respondent constructed the building on Survey No. 21. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed a suit challenging the said resumption by means of a declaratory suit. The said suit was decreed and appeal against the said judgment was dismissed and the decree was affirmed by the first appellate Court. We are informed that the second appeal is pending before the High Court. While the aforesaid proceedings were going on the predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller for ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In the said suit, four issues were framed. The main issues framed were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and whether the defendants are liable for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. However, the application was allowed. An appeal against the said judgment was dismissed and the revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court. It is in this way the appellant has come to this Court by means of special leave petition.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent as the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1940 was not applicable to the building in question.
3. We have considered the matter and find that neither any plea in this regard was taken nor any such issue was framed be fore the Rent Controller. The question of applicability of the Act is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be decided for the first time in this Court. We, therefore, decline to permit the learned Counsel to raise this ground before us. Learned Counsel then urged that since the second appeal filed by the Union of India against the decree of the trial Court which was affirmed by the first appellate Court is pending before the High Court and as such this appeal must await the decision of the High Court in the second appeal preferred by the appellant. The controversy in the present case is entirely different than the subject matter in the pending second appeal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by awaiting the decision of the High Court in the second appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.