IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court's rejection of the exemption under Section 80(2) of the CPC did not consider the urgency of the matter and failed to appreciate that the termination had already been effected, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order be set aside and quashed.

ORDER

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 03.02.2021, passed by the Court of the Learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, whereby an application under Section 80(2) of the CPC was rejected.

2. In brief, the petitioner as plaintiff had instituted a declaratory suit before the Trial Court challenging the termination notice dated 29.10.2020, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby a Lease Agreement dated05.03.2019, for an IMFL, Wet Canteen entered into between the petitioner and State respondents was sought to be terminated w.e.f., from 27.01.2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that with the rejection of the application under Section 80(2) of the CPC, he has been left remediless, hence the instant petition.

3. Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was granted a Lease to operate an IMFL, Wet Canteen for a period of five years w.e.f., from 01.03.2019, by Lease Agreement executed on 05.03.2019 between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. That thereafter the counsel submits, the petitioner had incurred substantial costs towards setting up the said establishment and was in full operation apart from paying all the required IMFL license and renewal fees as payable, when he was served with a termination notice dated 29.10.2020, whereby the Lease was sought to be terminated. Counsel submits that the petitioner thereafter, through his Advocate had on 13.01.2021, replied to the said termination notice but the respondent No. 2 did not respond to the same, or accept the request of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel submits that as the termination notice was to be effective from 27.01.2021, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of a writ proceeding under Article 226, due to the closure of the Civil Courts at that point of time, and that this Court by order dated 28.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 14 of 2021 was pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to present a suit on the same cause of action before a competent Civil Court, and also directed that in the meanwhile that status quo be maintained as on date for a period of two weeks. It is further submitted that apart from the other facts and in view of the order dated 28.01.2021 in WP(C) No. 14 of 2021, the petitioner filed a declaratory suit along with injunction application and a Misc. case being Misc. Case No. 3 of 2021 under Section 80(2) of the CPC for dispensation of notice.

5. Learned counsel submits that however, the Learned Trial Court by order dated 03.02.2021, rejected the prayer to exempt issuance of Section80 notice, by misconstruing the entire scope and purport of the provisions and powers as contained in Section 80(2) of the CPC. He contends that the Learned Trail Court did not consider the urgency of the matter and the reasons recorded in rejecting the prayer, is contrary to both Section 80(1) and (2) of the CPC, this too, inspite of acknowledging that termination of the Lease Agreement was w.e.f., from 27.01.2021. Instead, he submits, the Trial Court was of the opinion that compliance of the mandate of Section 80 would facilitate settlement without resorting to unnecessary litigation. Learned counsel argues that the termination having already been effected, the only remedy was by way of recourse to a judicial process as there was no further scope of settlement of the disputes between the parties, which the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate. Learned counsel further submits that the fact that liberty had been granted by this Court to the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2021, was also completely overlooked by the Trial Court. As such, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and quashed.

6. Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents, in his short submissions on the necessity of compliance to Section 80 of the CPC, has placed reliance