U.C Srivastava and S.H.A Raza, JJ.:— Learned Single Judge, finding that there were two conflicting single judge decisions of this court on the point in issue, referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench to hear this revision and this is how this case has come before this Bench.
2. The Union of India, being tenant, lost ejectment suit before the court of Judge, small causes against which revision, Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, was preferred before this court.
3. In the said revision the court held that there was no good ground for interfering with the finding recorded by the trial court. It appears that the main question pressed before the learned single judge was whether a composite notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 C.P.C could be validly issued for maintaining a civil suit. In Union of India v. Sahu Ram Rakshpal . 1979 U.P.R.C.C 52. Hon'ble K.N Singh, J. held that a composite notice could validly be issued. In the case of Union of India v. Chandra Kishore Agrawal, 2 Hon'ble K.M Dayal, J. took a contrary view. But in the later case the earlier case was not taken note of and if the same was taken note of the case would have been referred to a Division Bench. In the case of Union of India v. Chandra Kishore Agrawal (supra) the learned judge held:—
“Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that besides the name of the parties and the relief sought, the cause of action to be specificelly mentioned in the notice. The cause of action for ejectment can arise only when tenancy stands terminated by the combined notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 20(2) of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. XIII of 1972. When the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure with notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was issued in the instant case, it could not be ascertained when it would be served, when the period of notice would expire and when the tenancy would stand terminated. The case of action required to be mentioned under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for ejectment of the tenant (Union of India) would necessarily be the date of termination of tenancy. In absence of mention of cause of action for ejectment the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be invalid and no suit for ejectment could be maintainable against Union of India.”
4. In the case of State of U.P v. N.C Muhkerji . 1989 A.L.J 1117. the case of Chandra Kishore Agarwal (supra) was distinguished. In Rang Nath v. State . 1984 A.L.J 455. the matter came up for consideration before another learned single Judge who also after taking into consideration the case of State of U.P v. Smt. Mohan Devi . 1977 A.L.J 365. and that of State of U.P v. N.C Mukerji . 1983 A.L.J 1117. took the same view. In the case of State of U.P v. Smt. Mohan Devi, (supra) it was held that a notice under Section 80 C.P.C can be given before the accrual of cause of action created by the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. In Chandulal Vadilal v. Government of Province of Bombay . A.I.R 1943 Bom. 138. it was observed:—
“The cause of action, which is to be stated in the notice is the bundle of facts which go to make up the right in respect of which the plaintiff proposes to sue and it is obvious that before the suit can be brought, it may be that bundle of facts may be added to or subtracted from. The notice is not invalidated, because it refers to a possible additional claim, consequential upon the cause of action specified therein, and states that if such additional claim arises, the plaintiff will sue also in respect of it.”
6. On its basis it was held that cause of action was fully stated in the notice. Similar view was taken in Smt. Raya Bai v. State of Maharashtra . A.I.R 1973 Bom. 59. Hon'ble K.N Singh, J. agreed with the view taken in Smt. Rayabai's case (supra).
7. Tenancy is terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act But no suit can be filed as against the Central Government or State Government till before expiration of two months after service of notice. The suit for ejectment after termination of tenancy is not to be filed immediately after expiry of the period of notice. The bundle of facts which make cause of action for filing a suit do find place in the notice which is also a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The additional claim in it or uncertainty in the period of service would not invalidate it. The service will stand terminated after expiry of period of notice, but the suit is to be filed after two months. Neither the notice would be invalid nor suit on such a ground entails dismissal. We agree with the view taken by Hon'ble K.N Singh, J. (as he then was) and overrule the case of Chandra Kishore Agarwal, (supra). As no other plea arises in the instant case we order, the revision applications are dismissed with costs.
8. Revision dismissed.