In the absence of the application of rent control legislation, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant by termination of tenancy unless there is a contract to the contrary.

G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants second appeal in a suit for eviction. The premises are situated in the town of Shahjahanpur in district Alwar. Admittedly at present the provisions of Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 are not applicable. Both the lower courts have decreed the suit of plaintiff.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, Shri Rastogi has raised a twofold objection. Firstly, he has submitted that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is a beneficial legislation enacted for the purpose of providing protection to the tenants from the exploitation of the landlords and it has been applied to much smaller places than the town of Shahjahanpur. On these premises, Shri Rastogi argued that his client has been discriminated under Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, this Court should issue a Mandamus directing the State to apply the above act by extending it to the town in Shahjahanpur. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Milap Chand v. Dwarkadas, 1954 Raj LW 587: (AIR 1954 Raj 252 ).

( 3 ) SECONDLY it was argued that the landlord has come on specific grounds of ejectment and therefore, even though the Rent Control Act is not applicable, the Court cannot grant a decree for eviction, Unless those specific grounds of ejectment are proved.

( 4 ) I have given a thoughtful consideration on the submission of Mr. Rastogi, which were pressed before this Court with great vehemence and in that context, I have gone through the judgments of both the lower courts.

( 5 ) IT is true that the rent control legislations are enacted for the purpose of providing protection to the tenants and regulating the rent and eviction- It is also true that it is a beneficial legislation and this Court can in an appropriate case, consider whether non-application by non-extension of the provisions of this Act in a particular case results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the present one is an appeal in a civil suit. The controversy about the facts, which may become relevant for the purpose of deciding the question, whether Article 14 ran be invoked were not pleaded anywhere before the trial Court. True, it is, that in a given case, this Court can take judicial notice of certain facts which become too obvious and patent but that too requires an adjudication after both the parties are allowed an opportunity. To contest the same, a proper forum for such a prayer which Shri Rastogi has made, is filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am afraid it would not be possible for this Court in second appeal to take judicial notice of all the facts which Shri Rastogi now wants to plead and to grant relief in this jurisdiction.

( 6 ) THE decision referred to by Shri Rastogi of Milap Chands case (AIR 1954 Raj 252), wherein this Court considered the question of validity of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act will not provide any help to the defendant in this case. The findings which were recorded by this Court in this judgment are summarised in para 32, which reads as under:--

"32. We are, therefore, of opinion that:- (1) Sections 6, 8 and 22 (2) of the impugned Act are valid and are not hit by Article 254 (11 of the Constitution.

(2) the impugned Act is not invalidated on the ground that it is hit by Article 14, and

(3) the impugned Act was validly extended by the Rajpramukh in November, 1952, under the proviso to Section 31. "

( 7 ) MR. Rastogi referred to sub-head Note F. which reads as under:-- It is desirable, where legislation of this kind (involving selection and classification) is passed that the basis of selection should be put down in the Act itself or indicated in the preamble, so that the courts may easily test the Act on the anvil of Article 14, and may not have to search far and wide for a basis of classification. Such provision in the Act itself or in the preamble woul