The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 80 CPC, which requires notice to be issued when the cause of action is against the government or a public officer. The judgment also clarified the necessity of including the State Government as a party based on the relief sought in the suit.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent. Accordingly he has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) AS the Appeal can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. The records of the Appeal are not necessary because on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, the Appeal can be disposed of.

( 3 ) THIS Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 24-2-1990 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, mangalore in R. A. No. 106/1985 affirming the Judgment and decree dated 22-11-1985 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Mangalore in o. S. No. 106/1980.

( 4 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The appellant filed the aforesaid suit o. S. No. 106/1980 for a declaration that he is entitled to be in possession of the Plaint-A schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent, his men, agents, assigns and/or persons ordered or authorised from in any way trespassing into Plaint 'a' Schedule premises and/or dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly or otherwise and for costs etc.

( 5 ) THE respondent-defendant is the Rent Controller, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. The Schedule 'a' property is a residential premises bearing Door No. 2-12-945 situated at Bejai, Mangalore, dakshina Kannada. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate court have dismissed the suit on the ground that it was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 C. P. C. and the State Government is a necessary party to the suit.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: 1) Whether the suit, as brought without issuing notice under section 80 C. P. C. , is maintainable in law? 2) Whether the State Government is a necessary party to the suit? point NO. 1

( 7 ) THE Plaint averments as summarised by the trial Court, the correctness of which is not in dispute are as follows:"the plaintiff is the owner of the premises bearing Door no. 2-12-945 situated at Bejai, Mangalore, O. K. The said premises was leased out by the plaintiff earlier to the tenant and the plaintiff filed an eviction petition in H. R. C. 95/74 on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore and obtained an order of eviction under section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Subsequent to the obtaining of order of eviction, the possession of the premises was also recovered from the said tenant by the plaintiff. After having thus recovered the possession, it appears that the plaintiff started occupying the said premises. In the meantime, the Rent Controller started proceedings against the plaintiff and however, subsequently, the same was suspended. It appears that the defendant on or about 28-9-1979 sent an intimation to the plaintiff stating that the action under Section 10a of the Karnataka Rent Control Act would be initiated as the plaintiff has leased out the premises in favour of Suresh unauthorisedly without the permission of the Rent Controller though the said building has fallen within the purview of the karnataka Rent Control Act. Having felt aggrieved by the said letter sent by the Rent Controller, the plaintiff sent a reply dated 13-11-1979. In spite of the said reply as given by the plaintiff, for a considerable length of time there was no response in the matter. After the plaintiff gave the said reply to the Rent controller, the proceedings before the Rent Controller stood adjourned from time to time and ultimately an order was passed against the plaintiff and also the said Suresh under Section 10a of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The plaintiff has contended that the action of the Rent Controller in initiating the proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. The action of the defendant is clearly illegal and the so-called proceedings are in contravention of the provisions o