Union of India vs Lalit Kumar Raina

In this civil 2nd appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20/11/1995 passed by the learned District Judge. Jammu. following questions of

law have been formulated for determination:

Whether in a suit for eviction against the union of India, a composite notice under section 80 of C.P.C. and Section 106 of Transfer of

Property Act will meet the requirements of law ? ""2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. Whether in the facts and circumstances

of the present case. notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant on January, 17, 1990, to evict the rented premises by or before February, 28.

1990 satisfy the mandate of Section 80 of the C.P.C. and Section 106 of Transfer of property Act.

The admitted facts of the case are that the demised premises were leased out to the appellant on 01031984 initially for a period of only three

years. The lease was extended for a further period of three years. It was to expire on 28021990. The landlord by a notice dated January 17,

1990, called upon the appellant to vacate the premises by 28th Feb. 1990 i.e. the date tenancy was to expire by aflux of time. One of the issues

framed by the trial court was with regard to the validity of the notice. It reads as follows:

Whether the notice sent by the plaintiff is not valid. If so what is the effect on the suit ? OPD

Although the issue is not happily worded but it being an issue of law, the onus is immaterial. The trial court as also the first appellate court have

held the notice valid and decreed the suit.

The questions have been formulated by the Bench admitting the appeal without questioning correctness of the decision of this court in 'Assistant

Director I.B. (MHA) Govt. of India & ors Vs. Shrimati Rani Fotedar & anr, 1977 JKLR (Vol. VIII) 65; and 'Union of India Vs. Bansi Lal

Cherwoo', 1986 JKLR 522. In the case of Rani Fotedar (supra), KotwalJ (as his lordship then was) dealing with a similar issue held as follows:

Cause of action is a compedious term for describing all those facts which a plaintiff is required to prove for succeeding in his suit and the object of

stating these facts in a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only to apprise the defendant of the nature of the intended suit as

also the relief sought to be claimed therein, so that the defendant gets a fair chance of considering the merits of the plaintiff's case and thereafter

deciding whether or not to resist the proposed suit in a court of law. Understood in this perspective ""cause of action"" would mean not only the

cause of action which has accrued on the date the notice is sent or delivered but also a cause of action which might accrue at any time after such

date but before the suit is actually filed. The composite notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and 80 Civil Procedure Code

determining the tenancy from a future date and calling upon the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the leasehold on the said date, is

perfectly valid and a suit for ejectment on the basis of such a notice will also be competent provided it is brought two months next after the notice

has been delivered to or left at the office of the defendants.

This decision has been followed in the case of Bansi Lal Cherwoo (supra) decided by the Lord Chief Justice Dr. A.S. Anand (Now Chief

Justice of India). Reliance was also placed oh the decision of High Court of Rajasthan by observing as under:""In Rawat Hardoo Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan AIR 1081 Rajasthan 280, the validity of a composite notice under section 106 T.P. Act and Section 80 C.P.C served before the

termination of tenancy, which got determined during the period of the notice, came up for consideration and it was held:""A combined notice under

Section 106 of T.P. Act and under Section 80 Civil PC. is valid. The purpose of a notice under Section 80 is to inform the defendant of the suit

intended to be filed and the relief sought to be claimed. Once it is brought to the notice of the proposed defendant that the sender of the notice

intended to terminate the tenancy and that the notice under Section 80 C.P.C would terminate subsequent to or alongwith the termination of the

tenancy, then the validity of such a notice cannot be challenged on the ground that the cause of action for serving a notice under Section 80 C.P.C

had not arisen when the notice was so served."" No judgement or authority taking a contrary view was cited or brought to my notice by the learned

counsel for the appellant.

After discussing the facts of the case his Lordship held as follows:

Thus considered either way, it must be held that the composite notice under Section 106 T.P. Act and Section 80 CPC was a valid notice.

The questions formulated were thus no longer resintegra for the court as long as correctness of their decisions was not doubted which is not the

case. While the second question also stands answered as the cause of action has been clearly stated as what is important is not the form but the

substance of the notice. In State of Madras V. C.P. Agencies and anr, AIR 1960 SC 1309, their Lordships held as under.

The object of Section 80 is manifestly to give the Government of the public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought

against it or him sp that it or he may consider the position and decide for itself or himself. Whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted or

resisted. In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at a decision it is necessary that it or he should be informed of the nature

of the suit proposed to be filed against it or him and the facts on which the claim is founded and the precise reliefs asked for.

As already stated the relief claimed has been quite clearly formulated by stating that the fixed term tenancy was to expire on 28021990 and the

vacant possession be handed over on the expiry of the tenancy. The notice also determined the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of

Property Act. So defendantappellant was informed of the action proposed to initiated in the event of their failure to deliver the vacant possession of

the premises. It is not disputed that the suit was instituted only after the expiry of two months from the date of service of the notice. So the notice

under section 80 was not deficient in any manner whatsoever.

Viewed1 thus the composite notice has been rightly held as valid and the appeal is concluded by the decisions of this court. Mr. Gupta,

however, wanted that appellants may be given six months to make alternate arrangement. This was accepted by Mr. Anand, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent, on the condition that the amount of arrears of rent is liquidated. Hence the decreeholder shall not execute the decree

till 31st December. 1999, provided entire amount of arrears is paid to him within two months and the rest is paid regularly. With this the appeal is

dismissed with costs.