IMPORTANT POINT
Notice must contain cause of action.

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 08.08.2008 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 revisionists as also learned Standing Counsel for the defendant opposite parties a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Trial Court was of the view that the notice was not in accordance with the Section 80 CPC inasmuch as it did not contain the ingredients necessary for such a notice. The fact that it was a composite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act also would not in any manner obliterate the provisions of Section 80 CPC insofar as the opposite parties who are State authorities are concerned. The Trial Court has found that there was no mention of any lease deed or that the time under the lease deed had expired in the notice under Section 80 CPC. As such it found that there was no cause of action shown in the notice under Section 80 CPC to bring the instant suit.

5. The Trial Court also found that the damages for use and occupation claimed had not been detailed in the notice but were claimed in the plaint. As such it found that for those two reasons the notice under Section 80 CPC was invalid and hence it decided issue Nos.2 and 3 against the revisionists plaintiff.

6. Upon going through the provisions of Section 80 CPC it will be seen that under Section 80(3) there is implied bar of a suit from being instituted against the State Government in case the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff has not been substantially indicated. The requirement of the provision of Section 80 CPC is required to be tested on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. The notice itself has been filed as annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. A perusal of the notice indicates that there is no mention of lease deed. When there is no mention of any lease deed then it is not clear from the notice as to whether the tenancy of the opposite parties was in pursuance of a lease deed which was for a fixed period and fixed rent.

8. Under such circumstances when the facts of the case clearly are admitted between the parties that the tenancy of the opposite parties was on the basis of written lease deed and no such disclosure was made by the revisionists in the notice under Section 80 CPC then the provisions of sub-section 3 Clause (b) of Section 80 CPC were clearly violated since there is no cause of action shown for bringing the suit in the notice under Section 80 CPC. In other words the suit could not be dismissed if the cause of action had been disclosed in the notice. In the present case no cause of action was disclosed in the notice. There was no mention of the lease deed although the tenancy was admittedly by virtue of a written lease deed entered into between the parties. Clearly the notice under Section 80 CPC was not a valid notice as required by the provisions of Section 80(3)(b) CPC. The fact that