A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Shri Chandra Prakash Srivastava, Advocate instructed by Shri A. N. Sinha, Advocate argued that in the instant case, plaint did not contain cause of action Inasmuch as it was not pleaded that tenancy was determined by the notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act (for short called TPA). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no amount of evidence could cure the defect caused by absence of necessary pleading upon which depended the Jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice under Section 106 of the Act dated 12th September 1994 has not been proved and neither in the plaint it is stated that by said notice tenancy was determined. According to him, an absence of pleading giving cause of action to the plaintiff, suit against the tenant was not maintainable.
(2.) Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing copy of Memorandum of revision, notice under Section 106 of the Act and copy of affidavit dated 16th November, 1996 filed by the plaintiff in support of his case.
(3.) Perusal of the notice (Annexure-lII to the supplementary affidavit) shows that there is averment to the effect that tenancy of the ten ant-petitioner was determined and he was required to handover possession on expiry of thirty days (particular page 21 of the supplementary affidavit). Copy of the plaint has been filed as (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Para 5 of the plaint shows that requisite pleadings are contained therein. Cause of action has also been pleaded in the plaint. Objection on this score is misconceived and cannot be sustained.;