JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the State of U.P. arising out of the following facts:

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the State of U.P. and the Civil Surgeon, Dehradun on the ground of their being in arrears of rent for more than three months and had not been paid in spite of notice. The premises was taken for running a hospital. The tenancy was from month to month but the rent was to be paid annually to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment after serving notices under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C.P.C.

2. The suit was contested by the State of U.P. on the ground that the notice under Section 80, C.P.C., was bad and that the tenancy was an annual tenancy and the rent had to be paid by the end of March.

3. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that the tenancy was from month to month. Now this fact is not in controversy. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on the finding that the notices were good and there was arrears of rent for more than three months. The State of U.P. filed an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the State of U.P. has filed this appeal.

4. The only point which was pressed in this appeal was that under Section 80, C.P.C., it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have mentioned the cause of action on which the suit was to be filed and as till the date of the notice, no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs, therefore, the notice was bad in law. This contention is based on the ground that after the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendants had a right to pay up the entire dues and to save themselves from ejectment and therefore the cause of action for the suit would only arise if the amount was not paid after the notice and in this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the notice was bad because on the date of the notice, no cause of action under Section 80, C.P.C., had accrued.

5. In support of their respective contentions, the learned counsel for the parties, cited a number of decisions of different High Courts. There is no doubt that the defendants were in arrears of rent for three months. It was the duty of the defendants to pay the rent of each month on the date it fell due but for three consecutive months, the rent was not paid. Under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, a landlord gets a right to sue for ejectment of the tenant who is in arrears of rent for three months after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As laid down under the aforesaid section, the tenant can save his ejectment from the premises if he pays the rent within the time prescribed in the notice. In case he does not pay the amount, the cause of action for filing the suit would not be on the date of his final refusal but on the date on which the amount fell into arrears. There may be cases where a tenant after receiving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act may not write to the landlord about his refusal to pay. Therefore, in such cases, it will be difficult to know actually the date on which the refusal was made. It shall be only presumed that as the rent was not paid within the time specified in the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that amounted to refusal.

6. In the instant case, it is noteworthy that the same cause of action was given in the plaint which was mentioned in the notice under Section 80, C.P.C. The notices under Section 80, C.P.C. are given to the Government only to know the exact position and to settle the dispute. The cause of action has to be inferred from the bundle of facts stated in the notice. From the facts stated in the notice, which has been read over to me, there is not the least doubt that the defendants had failed to pay the arrears of rent which was due for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document