Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Madhav Jain learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the defendant respondents.

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 94 of 2008 (Sri Bansh Gopal v. The Regional Food Controller and another).

3. According to Madhav Jain the suit has been illegally dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the notice dated 8.8.2008 sent by the revisionists to the opposite parties was illegal. He further states that the finding recorded in the impugned order to the effect that the details of the damages claimed by the petitioner were not detailed in the notice under Section 80 CPC is illegal. He further submits that in pursuance of the said composite notice dated 8.8.2008 the revisionists had terminated the tenancy of the opposite parties under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the revisionists only for the reason of defect in notice under Section 80 CPC.

4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revision