The judgment establishes the importance of readiness and willingness in specific performance cases, the sufficiency of notice under Section 80 CPC, and the validity of orders under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act.

1. The plaintiff, claiming to be the tenant of the property measuring 57 feet east to west and 35 feet north to south, opted to purchase the property in accordance with the offer given by The Commissioner of HR & CE Department, the second defendant, and having failed in his attempt, approached the Court by filing pauper O.P. in O.P. No.29 of 1985 seeking direction to the defendants to execute and register the sale deed.

2. The suit was decreed, as against which the first defendant filed the first appeal in A.S.No.30 of 1998. The appeal was dismissed, thereby the trial court's judgment was confirmed. As against the dismissal, second appeal has been filed. The following substantial questions of law have been raised:-

"1. Whether the Courts below were right in not dismissing the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.Code, which goes to the root of the matter?

2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff had a right to approach the Courts below for specific performance in view of the admitted allotment of the land by the HR & CE Dept. to one Subramani?

3. Whether the suit for specific performance is not liable to be dismissed in the absence of pleadings and evidence regarding any agreement in favour of the plaintiff, the sale consideration for such agreement, the financial capacity and the readiness and willingness of the respondent/plaintiff to perform him part of the contract?"

3. The brief facts:-

The suit was filed informa-pauperis and the court fee payable is Rs.900.50. The suit has been valued at Rs.12,000/- which is said to be the market value of the property. The property is situated in Chengalpet District, Saidapet Taluk, in Velacherry Village, in R.S.No.192/2 an extent of 57 feet east west and 35 feet north south. The plaintiff claims that the suit property belongs to Arulmigu Yoga Narasimhar Devasthanam of Vellachery Village. The suit property was taken on lease by one Subramani and who in turn leased out the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff put up a residential hut in the suit property and he was paying rents to the first defendant.

4. The second defendant passed an order under proceedings No.25/1984, dated 25.08.1984, proposing to sell the property in favour of the persons who are in actual possession of the respective portion in the suit survey number, R.S.No.192/2. Even though the plaintiff satisfied all the requirements and entitled to purchase the property, but as per the order made by the second defendant, the option to purchase the property has been mistakenly given to Subramani who was not the tenant of the aforesaid property.

5. The plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A-1 to the second defendant informing that, (a) it is he, who put up the super structure in the suit property, (b) the erstwhile tenant, Subramani, did not pay the rents and it is he, who paid the arrears of rents for fifteen months, which was payable by Subramani and (c) as a poor person having no other property, the suit property must be sold to him.

6. Under Ex.A-4 notice dated 25.09.1984, which is purported to have been issued under Section 80 CPC, the plaintiff has set-out all those facts stated above and has made it specific that the plaintiff is entitled to purchase the property from the defendants and that any sale, if made in favour of Subramani will be invalid. Though the notice has been received by the second defendant (Ex.A-5 acknowledgement), there was no reply. Notice has been returned by the first defendant under Ex.A-6. Under Ex.A-8 the plaintiff has reminded the defendants informing them that the enhancement of rent from Rs.25/-per month to Rs.50/- per month, as per Ex.A-25, dated 05.08.1985, may not be justifiable as he was unable to withstand the financial burden of paying even Rs.25/-per month. When the defendants refused / neglected to receive rents from the plaintiff, he has paid it by way of demand draft as evidenced by Ex.A-23. For obtaining electricity service connection, the first defendant has given conse