A notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is valid if it states the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff, and the relief claimed, even if it is given during the period during which the tenancy is subsisting.

JUDGMENT-This is a petition by a landlord whose suit for possession of the property was dismissed by the appellate Court which reversed the decree of the trial Court which granted the claim.

2. The petitioner is the owner of City Survey No. 2607 situated at Meharun within the municipal limits of Jalgaon. On this site there are five buildings which have been leased to the respondent, the State of Maharashtra, on a monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs. 250 per month. The lease was effected for the purpose of occupation of police personnel of the respondent. In Civil Suit No. 19 of 1965 filed on March 22, 1965, which was decreed on July 2, 1966, the plaintiff was held entitled to charge permitted increases at the rate of Rs. 32.66 in addition to rent and the said suit was decreed for the arrears claimed therein. The claim of the plaintiff for the educational cess was disallowed on the ground that there was no notice served by him on the respondent on that account.

3. On October 3, 1966, by exh. 26 the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent claiming arrears of rent for more than six months. By the said notice the tenancy of the respondent was terminated with effect from October 31, 1966. In the said notice in para. 4, respondent No. 1 was told that if default was made in compliance with the terms of the notice, a suit would be filed for the recovery of possession and other reliefs. In the said paragraph it was also mentioned that this was notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Within the period required by the statute there was no compliance by the respondent. The petitioner therefore filed the suit on January 23, 1967, claiming arrears of permitted increases from March 12, 1965 to October 31, 1966, arrears of education cess for a period of three years upto October 31, 1966, rent for August; September and October, 1966 and compensation from November 1966 to January 22, 1967. The petitioner also claimed possession and future mesne profits until delivery of possession and costs.

4. Out of defences the point that remains for consideration at present is whether there was a proper service of notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court decreed the suit by holding that there was proper service of notice whereas the appeal Court held that there was no proper service under section 80 and dismissed the suit for possession. The petitioner has filed this petition for relief of possession by quashing the order of the appellate Court.

5. Mr. Limaye who appears for the petitioner contended that the terms of notice very clearly stated what is required to be done by respondent 1. He argued that the provisions of section SO are satisfied by the terms of notice, exh. 26, and the date on which the suit is filed. Section 80 requires that a suit cannot be filed against the Government or against a public officer ••• until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of ••• stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left."

So far as the two months period after service of notice is concerned, that is satisfied because the notice is dated October 3, 1966, and the suit was filed on January 23, 1967. So far as the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief that is claimed are concerned, there can be no dispute that these statements are contained in the notice. The plaint also states that a notice has been given. The point that was considered by the appellate Court was that the notice does not satisfy the requirement regarding cause of action. The appellate Court found that the claim for possession had not materialised at the date when the notice was given and therefore the notice was invalid in regard to the claim for possession.

6. The argument accepted by the lower appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document