STATE OF U P Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of U. P. arising out of the fol lowing facts: The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the State of U. P and the Civil Surgeon, Dehradun on the ground of their being in arrears of rent for more than three months and had not been paid in spite of notice. The premises was taken for running a hospital. The tenancy was from month to month but the rent was to be paid annually to the plain tiffs. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment after serv ing notices under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C. P. C.

(2.) THE suit was contested by thd State of U. P. on the ground that the notice under Section 80, C. P. C., was bad and that the tenancy was an annual tenancy and the rent had to be paid by the end of March.

(3.) THE only point which was pressed in this appeal was that under Sec tion 80, C. P. C., it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have mentioned the cause of action on which the suit was to be filed and as till the date of the notice, no cause of action had accrued to the plain tiffs, therefore, the notice was bad in law. This contention is based on the ground that after the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defen dants had a right to pay up the entire dues and to save themselves from eject ment and therefore the cause of action for the suit would only arise if the amount was riot paid after the notice and in this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the notice was bad because on the date of the notice, no cause of action under Section 80, C. P. C., had accrued.