A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2008, whereby the application preferred by the revisionists for rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. has been rejected. The circumstances in which the controversy arises in the revision is as follows.
(2.) THE opposite party instituted a suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2004) for ejectment of the revisionist from the premises in question on the ground of arrears of rent. The revisionists, i.e., the tenants filed their written statement on 3.12.2004 raising an objection in para 5 whereby it was averred that the suit was barred as 60 days clear notice was not given to the revisionists as contemplated under Section 80 of the C.P.C. They thereafter preferred an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint for want of proper notice under Section 80, C.P:C. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 rejected the said application and negatived the plea of the revisionists. It is the said order which has been assailed through the present revision. I have heard Shri Shesh Verma learned counsel for the revisionisms in support of the revision and Shri S. K. Mehrotra learned counsel for the opposite party in opposition.
(3.) SHRI Verma vehemently argued that the suit itself was bad for want of 60 days clear notice as contemplated under Section 80, C.P.C. and as such the learned court below committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. He further argued that the revisionists being a State owned Corporation falls under the definition of 'State' and being an instrumentality of the Government notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was mandatory and in the absence of the same, suit could not proceed.;