- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the landlord. Through two lease deeds dated 29-8-1970 executed in between petitioner and Governor of United Provinces, accommodation in dispute was given by the petitioner on lease. Through the first lease half portion of the accommodation in dispute was given for establishing the headquarters of 66 U. P. Battalion N. C. C. And through the other lease deed rest half portion of the accommodation in dispute was given for establishing office of 91 U. P. Battalion. N. C. C. Afterwards the number of 66 U. P. Battalion was changed to 90 and Battalion. No. 91 was changed to Battalion 93. The rent of each portion was Rs. 225/- per month. The period of lease in both the lease deeds was 3 years from 1-9-1970 to 31- 8-1973. Petitioner filed two suits for eviction in respect of both the portions of the accommodation in dispute which were dismissed for want of notice under Section 80, C. P. C. Thereafter fresh suits were filed after giving notice giving rise to the instant writ petitions. S. C. C. Suit No. 30 of 1979 was filed in respect of the portion occupied by U. P. 66 Bn. N. C. C. (re- numbered afterwards as U. P. 90 Bn. N. C. C. ). S. C. C. Suit No. 31 of 1979 was filed in respect of portion occupied by U. P. 91 Bn. N. C. C. (later on re-numbered as U. P. 93 Bn. N. C. C. ). Both the suits were dismissed on the ground of defective notice under Section 80, C. P. C. On 27-5-1981 by J. S. C. C. /civil Judge, Ballia. Against the said judgments and decrees two revisions were filed. Number of the revision filed in respect of judgment in S. C. C. Suit No. 31 of 1979 was S. C. C. Revision No. 35 of 1981. Both the revisions were dismissed on 21- 9-1981 by the District Judge, Ballia by 15 line judgment. Notices in respect of both portions under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act given on 6-12-1978 were served on 7-12- 1978. Thereafter notices under Section 80, C. P. C. Given on 8-1- 1979 were served on 9-1-1979. Copy of the said notice is Annexure '3' to the first writ petition. Thereafter suits were filed on 26/27 March, 1979. Copy of the plaint of O. S. No. 31 of 1979 is Annexure '4' to the first writ petition. Initially in the suit Governor of the United Provinces was impleaded as one of the defendants. However, later on petitioner realized that the description of the aforesaid defendant was not correct and correct description of defendant No. 1 ought to be State of U. P. through Collector, Ballia. Accordingly fresh notices under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act were given to State of U. P. through Collector, Ballia. Thereafter fresh notices under Section 80, C. P. C. were given on 6-8-1979. Thereafter application was filed seeking amendment in the plaint for correcting the description of defendant No. 1. First amendment application was filed on 8-10-1979 which was rejected on 13-10-1980 as not being in proper form. Thereafter another application for amendment was filed which was allowed afterwards. Copy of the first notice under Section 80, C. P. C. , is Annexure '3' to the first writ petition. In the said notice no period was mentioned. Copy of the second notice under Section 80, C. P. C. Which was given to State of U. P. through Collector Ballia before seeking amendment in the plaint is Annexure 4-B. In the said notice dated 6-8-1979 it was mentioned at the end that in case grievance was not re-dressed then notice, i. e. , State of U. P. , through Collector would be impleaded in the suit as defendant after the period of notice of 60 days.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below dismissed the suits only and only on the ground that the period mentioned in the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. dated 6-8-1979 was 60 days while under Section 80, C. P. C. It ought to be two months. In my opinion, both the Courts below were utterly wrong in law. Section 80, C. P. C. Does not require that any period must be mentioned in the notice. The only thing which is required by Section 80, C. P. C. is that notice shall be given and suit shall not be instituted until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered. In the instant case State of U. P. through Collector was impleaded much after the expiration of two months from the date of notice. Merely because period of sixty days was mentioned in the notice dated 6-8-1979 it would not make the notice invalid. The notice dated 6-8- 1979 was served on 7-8-1979. The first amendment application was filed after two months, i. e. , on 8-10- 1979. The said amendment application was rejected on 13-10-1980 and thereafter a fresh amendment application was filed seeking impleadment of the State of U. P. Accordingly, suit would be deemed to have been filed against the State of U. P. Through Collector when second amendment application was filed which was ultimately allowed. Second amendment application was filed after 13-10-1980, i. e. , more than 14 months from the date of service of notice under Section 80, C. P. C. , upon the State of U. P. , through Collector. In view of this there was absolutely no defect in the notice.;