UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALIT KUMAR RAINA
LAWS(J&K)-1999-5-29
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 28,1999

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Lalit Kumar Raina Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN this civil 2nd appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20/11/1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu following questions of law have been formulated for determination: - 1. Whether in a suit for eviction against the union of India, a composite notice under section 80 of C.P.C. and Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act will meet the requirements of law? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant on January, 17, 1990, to evict the rented premises by or before February, 28, 1990 satisfy the mandate of Section 80 of the C.P.C. and Section 106 of Transfer of property Act. 
(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the demised premises were leased out to the appellant on 01 -03 -1984 initially for a period of only three years. The lease was extended for a further period of three years. It was to expire on 28 -02 -1990. The landlord by a notice dated January 17, 1990, called upon the appellant to vacate the premises by 28th Feb. 1990 i.e. the date tenancy was to expire by afflux of time. One of the issues framed by the trial court was with regard to the validity of the notice. It reads as follows: Whether the notice sent by the plaintiff is not valid. If so what is the effect on the suit ? OPD 
(3.) ALTHOUGH the issue is not happily worded but it being an issue of law, the onus is immaterial. The trial court as also the first appellate court have held the notice valid and decreed the suit. The questions have been formulated by the Bench admitting the appeal without questioning correctness of the decision of this court in ËœAssistant Director I.B. (MHA) Govt. of India & ors Vs. Shrimati Rani Fotedar & anrâ„¢, 1977 JKLR (Vol. VIII) 65; and ËœUnion of India Vs. Bansi Lal Cherwooâ„¢, 1986 JKLR 522. In the case of Rani Fotedar (supra), Kotwal -J (as his lordship then was) dealing with a similar issue held as follows: - Cause of action is a compendious term for describing all those facts which a plaintiff is required to prove for succeeding in his suit and the object of stating these facts in a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only to apprise the defendant of the nature of the intended suit as also the relief sought to be claimed therein, so that the defendant gets a fair chance of considering the merits of the plaintiffâ„¢s case and thereafter deciding whether or not to resist the proposed suit in a court of law. Understood in this perspective cause of action  would mean not only the cause of action which has accrued on the date the notice is sent or delivered but also a cause of action which might accrue at any time after such date but before the suit is actually filed. The composite notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and 80 Civil Procedure Code determining the tenancy from a future date and calling upon the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the leasehold on the said date, is perfectly valid and a suit for ejectment on the basis of such a notice will also be competent provided it is brought two months next after the notice has been delivered to or left at the office of the defendants.  ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.