Aloke Chakrabarti - (1.) THIS revision is against the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1986 in Suit No. 147 of 1971 of the Court of Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad (as Judge of Small Causes).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist mainly raised two contentions. First contention is relating to the decision in the impugned judgment and decree on issue No. 2. The issue No. 2, as raised, is "whether the notice served by the plaintiff is a valid notice?" In the judgment, it has been found that the plaintiff has based his claim of the suit not only on the notice dated 9.8.1971 referred to in the plaint, but also on previous several notices and that of a subsequent notice dated 11.6.1971. It has further been held that the cause of suit is based on subsequent notice which has not been given before the suit was filed, the entire suit is liable to fail, and under the circumstances, the learned Judge found that the notice to quit and demand is invalid and issue has been decided against the plaintiff. From the original record, it appears that the suit was filed on 4.11.1971. The pleadings in the plaint also show that the cause of action of the suit arose on 9.8.1971, the date of notice and on 12.9.1971 when the period of notice expired for ejectment and in August, 1970 and the following months for arrears claimed within the jurisdiction of the Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that the notice being dated 9th August, 1971 and the period expiring on 12.9.1971, the suit filed on 4.11.1971 was not based on a notice issued subsequent to the filing of the suit. LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties also could not show any material from record justifying a finding that the suit was based on subsequent notice which had not been given before the suit was filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge in the Court below erred in deciding the issue No. 2 and in fact there was no defect in the said suit by reason of the notice on which the suit was based.;