The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific pleadings and compliance with statutory requirements in challenging the maintainability of a suit and other related issues.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

1. Heard Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the revisionists-defendants and Sri Atul Dayal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Hanuman Kinkar, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Present revision has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Anti-Corruption), Court No. 5, Gorakhpur in SCC Suit No. 15/2011 (Pashupati Colonizer Private Limited Vs. Smt. Kaisar Jahan and 11 others).

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists-defendants has challenged the judgment and decree basically on four grounds i.e. maintainability of suit, rate of rent, no proper notice and communication of sale deed.

4. So far as maintainability of suit is concerned, he submitted that respondent-plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, therefore, to initiate any legal proceeding, resolution of Board of Director of Company is necessarily required. In the cross examination, Director of the Company, namely, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, who has filed SCC Suit has accepted that he has not filed any resolution of Company as it was not required. There is no meeting of Board of Directors before filing the case. He next submitted that once there is no resolution, an individual Director cannot file SCC Suit for eviction against the revisionists-defendants. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & Another Vs. P.K. Prathapan & others; 2005 0 AIR (SC), in which Apex Court has observed that individual Director has no power to act on behalf of the Company.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists-defendants submitted that it is a question of law, which goes to the root of the case, therefore, it can be raised at any stage of proceeding. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Shri Saurav Jain & Another Vs. M/s A.B.P. Design & Another passed in Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29868 of 2018.

6. He next submitted that respondent-plaintiff is claiming the rent at the rate of Rs. 6600/-per month, but at no point of time, it has been proved and according to the revisionists-defendants, rent was Rs. 32/-per month, which has been deposited till the decision of suit under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). He next submitted that there is no specific finding as to how, amount of rent is Rs. 6600/- per month.

7. He further submitted that no proper notice has been given to them as notices are returned back with endorsement of postman as ^^ckj ckj tkus ij Hkh edku ij rkyk can jgrk gS^^ (Baar Baar Jaane Par Bhi Makaan Par Taala Band Rehta Hai). He next submitted that it is required on the part of plaintiff-respondent to examine the postman in Court to prove the service of notice for which no application had ever been filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Under such facts of the case, notice may not be treated to be sufficient and further postman has to be examined.

8. Lastly, he submitted that information of sale deed has never been provided to them, therefore, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submitted that so far as first contention with regard to maintainability of suit is concerned, it is necessarily required to raise this issue in plaint and should have been part of pleading, which has never been raised. Further, there is only vague assertion based upon the cross examinations not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted. He next submitted that it is required on the part of revisionists-defendants to have specific pleading to this effect and in lack of pleading, Court may not travel beyond that. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the