Report No. 100
2.7. A Rajasthan case.-
The same hyper-technical approach by the Government is illustrated, by the defence taken (though unsuccessfully) by the State of Rajasthan in a Rajasthan case.1 In that case, the plaintiff had given a combined notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (notice to a lessee to quit) and section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The contention of the State was that such a combined notice cannot be given. Fortunately, the contention did not succeed. But it is painful to have to refer to such cases and to point out that the defence taken was a totally untenable one. Neither section 106 nor section 80 provides anywhere that the notice under the provision in question must contain nothing else.
Nor does there exist, in the statutory or decisional law of India, any provision that if two statutory provisions require or contemplate intimation of two different matters, the person bound to give much intimation must embody each matter in a separate document. In fact, an earlier Bombay case had specifically held that the notices could be combined.2 Nor is there any principle of justice, enquiry and good conscience that necessitates a pedantic approach. That the defence did not ultimately succeed in the Rajasthan case is poor consolation to the litigant who must have spent sufficient time, energy and money in combating the defence. It is also a poor justification for the wastage of judicial time. In the Rajasthan case, the Government Advocate was unable to point out how Government was prejudiced by a combined notice.
1. Rawat Hardeo Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 Raj 280 (282, 283).
2. Rayabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 Born 59.