Compliance with Section 80 CPC is mandatory for suits against public officers; failure to notify the Government renders the case non-maintainable.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2020 of the learned III Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Tirupathur, in O.S. No. 9 of 2018.

3. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that she owns the premises bearing Door No. 4, Ananda Nagar 1st Street, By-Pass Road, Ambur, Vellore District. The defendant, a department of the State Government, was permitted to occupy the premises with effect from 03.02.2014 for official purposes. At the time of occupation, the plaintiff stated that the monthly rent would be Rs. 40,000/- or the rate to be fixed by the Public Works Department (PWD), whichever was lower. The PWD thereafter fixed the rent at Rs. 28,370/- per month. By letter dated 25.01.2016, the plaintiff demanded arrears of rent of Rs. 6,52,510/- for the period ending December 2015.

4. By letter dated 03.02.2016, the defendant, referring to G.O. Ms. No. 480 dated 26.11.2015, unilaterally fixed the rent at Rs. 16,370/- per month and enclosed a demand draft for Rs. 3,09,861/- towards arrears. The plaintiff declined consent and, by letter dated 05.05.2016, reaffirmed that the rent payable was Rs. 28,370/- per month. Thereafter, by legal notice dated 18.02.2017, the plaintiff terminated the oral licence and demanded vacant possession and arrears. The defendant, by reply dated 31.03.2017, denied the allegations. Consequently, the suit was filed for recovery of possession, arrears of rent of Rs. 4,49,539/- with interest, and damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- for unauthorised occupation.

5. Written statement in brief: The defendant contends that the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, no statutory notice having been issued to the Government or the competent authority, and that the plaintiff also failed to obtain leave under Section 80(2) CPC. It is further pleaded that the plaint is improperly valued and that the Government of Tamil Nadu, being the actual tenant, is a necessary party. The defendant denies liability for the rent claimed and asserts that the rent fixed under G.O. Ms. No. 480 dated 26.11.2015 is binding.

6. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour for arrears of rent and possession, dismissing the claim for damages; however, it neither framed nor addressed an issue regarding the absence of notice under Section 80 CPC.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the grounds urged in appeal, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the suit filed without notice under Section 80 CPC is maintainable?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the Government of Tamil Nadu as a necessary party under Order XXVII Rule 5-A CPC?

3. Whether the rent fixed by the PWD is binding on the defendant or the rent fixed under G.O. Ms. No. 480 applies?

4. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be set aside?

8. Points 1 and 2: These are pure questions of law that go to the root of the suit’s maintainability. The defendant, being an Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax), is a “public officer” within the meaning of Section 2(17)(g) CPC. The transaction with the plaintiff was undertaken in his official capacity to secure office accommodation for the Department. Accordingly, the suit is, in substance, one against the Government for acts done by its officer in an official capacity.

9. Section 80(1) CPC stipulates that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act done in an official capacity unless two months’ prior notice has been