JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the landlord. Through two lease deeds dated 29.8.1970 executed in between petitioner and Governor of United Provinces, accommodation in dispute was given by the petitioner on lease. Through the first lease half portion of the accommodation in dispute was given for establishing the headquarters of 66 U.P. Battalion N.C.C. And through the other lease deed rest half portion of the accommodation in dispute was given for establishing office of 91 U.P. Battalion. N.C.C. Afterwards the number of 66 U.P. Battalion was changed to 90 and Battalion. No.91 was changed to Battalion 93. The rent of each portion was Rs. 225/- per month. The period of lease in both the lease deeds was 3 years from 1.9.1970 to 31.8.1973. Petitioner filed two suits for eviction in respect of both the portions of the accommodation in dispute which were dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Thereafter fresh suits were filed after giving notice giving rise to the instant writ petitions. 3. S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 1979 was filed in respect of the portion occupied by U.P. 66 Bn. N.C.C. (re-numbered afterwards as U.P. 90 Bn. N.C.C.). S.C.C. Suit No. 31 of 1979 was filed in respect of portion occupied by U.P. 91 Bn. N.C.C. (later on re-numbered as U.P. 93 Bn. N.C.C.). Both the suits were dismissed on the ground of defective notice under Section 80 C.P.C. On 27.5.1981 by J.S.C.C./civil Judge, Ballia. Against the said judgements and decrees two revisions were filed. Number of the revision filed in respect of judgment in S.C.C. Suit No. 31 of 1979 was S.C.C. Revision No. 35 of 1981. Both the revisions were dismissed on 21.9.1981 by the District Judge, Ballia by 15 line judgment. 4. Notices in respect of both portions under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act given on 6.12.1978 were served on 7.12.1978. Thereafter notices under Section 80 C.P.C. Given on 8.1.1979 were served on 9.1.1979. Copy of the said notice is Annexure ‘3’ to the first writ petition. Thereafter suits were filed on 26/27 March, 1979. Copy of the plaint of O.S. No. 31 of 1979 is Annexure ‘4’ to the first writ petition. Initially in the suit Governor of the United Provinces was impleaded as one of the defendants. Copy of the said notice is Annexure ‘3’ to the first writ petition. Thereafter suits were filed on 26/27 March, 1979. Copy of the plaint of O.S. No. 31 of 1979 is Annexure ‘4’ to the first writ petition. Initially in the suit Governor of the United Provinces was impleaded as one of the defendants. However, later on petitioner realized that the description of the aforesaid defendant was not correct and correct description of Defendant No. 1 ought to be State of U.P. through Collector, Ballia. Accordingly fresh notices under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act were given to State of U.P. through Collector, Ballia. Thereafter fresh notices under Section 80 C.P.C. were given on 6.8.1979. Thereafter application was filed seeking amendment in the plaint for correcting the description of Defendant No.1. First amendment application was filed on 8.10.1979 which was rejected on 13.10.1980 as not being in proper form. Thereafter another application for amendment was filed which was allowed afterwards. Copy of the first notice under Section 80 C.P.C., is Annexure ‘3’ to the first writ petition. in the said notice no period was mentioned. Copy of the second notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Which was given to State of U.P. through Collector Ballia before seeking amendment in the plaint is Annexure 4-B, In the said notice dated 6.8.1979 it was mentioned at the end that in case grievance was not re-dressed then notice i.e. State of U.P., through Collector would be impleaded in the suit as defendant after the period of notice of 60 days. 5. Both the Courts below dismissed the suits only and only on the ground that the period mentioned in the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. dated 6.8.1979 was 60 days while under Section 80 C.P.C. It ought to be two months. 6. In my opinion, both the Courts below were utterly wrong in law. Section 80 C.P.C. does not require that any period must be mentioned in the notice. The only thing which is required by Section 80 C.P.C. is that notice shall be given and suit shall not be instituted until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered. In the instant case State of U. P. through Collector was impleaded much after the expiration of two months from the date of notice. The only thing which is required by Section 80 C.P.C. is that notice shall be given and suit shall not be instituted until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered. In the instant case State of U. P. through Collector was impleaded much after the expiration of two months from the date of notice. Merely because period of sixty days was mentioned in the notice dated 6.8.1979 it would not make the notice invalid. The notice dated 6.8.1979 was served on 7.8.1979. The first amendment application was filed after two months i.e. on 8.10.1979. The said amendment application was rejected on 13.10.1980 and thereafter a fresh amendment application was filed seeking impleadment of the State of U.P. Accordingly, suit would be deemed to have been filed against the State of U.P. Through Collector when second amendment application was filed which was ultimately allowed. Second amendment application was filed after 13.10.1980 i.e. more than 14 months from the date of service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., upon the State of U.P., through Collector. In view of this there was absolutely no defect in the notice. 7. Before the Trial Court an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Raghunath Das v. Union of India ( AIR 1969 SC 674 ) was cited. The Supreme Court in the said authority has held that notice under Section 80 C.P.C., must not be interpreted with a view to find fault in it. However, the Trial Court held that notice was utterly defective as it mentioned period of sixty days instead of two months. Mentioning any period in the notice under Section 80 C.P.C., is irrelevant. What is essential is that suit shall not be filed until expiry of two months from the date on which notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was delivered. In this regard reference may be made to Union of India v. Muralidhar Agarwalla and others (AlR 1952 Assam 141) and Buridehing Tea Co. Ltd, v. Dominion of India ( AIR 1955 Cal. 360 ). In this regard reference may be made to Union of India v. Muralidhar Agarwalla and others (AlR 1952 Assam 141) and Buridehing Tea Co. Ltd, v. Dominion of India ( AIR 1955 Cal. 360 ). In the Assam Authority in paragraph 10 it has been held that even though in a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Union of India was called upon to pay the claim within a month, however, such a demand could not invalidate the notice if the suit was, in fact, filed after the expiry of two months as required by section 80 C.P.C. In the Calcutta Authority it was held in para 9 that where demand is for payment within 30 days from the receipt of the notice but the suit is actually filed long after the statutory period two months, from service of the notice, the notice can not be held to be defective on this score. 8. Moreover, in 1976 section 80 C.P.C. was amended and sub section (3) was added to the said Section to the effect that no suit instituted against the Government or against the public officer shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice if in such notice name, description etc., of the plaintiff was properly given and cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. 9. Accordingly I hold that the findings of the Courts below that the suit was bad due to defective notice is utterly erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. 10. The Trial Court had held that U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute as the house in dispute was included in the definition of public building. There is no error in the said finding. No cross-objection was filed by the defendants against the said finding. Even during the hearing of the writ petition nothing was argued against the said finding. 11. Accordingly suit was liable to be decreed as tenancy had validly been terminated. 12. Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed. Judgments and Orders passed by the revisional Court and judgment and decrees passed by the J.S.C.C. In respect of both the portions of the house in dispute are set aside. Both the suits are decreed. 13. In 1970 rent of the whole house was Rs. 450 per month. 12. Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed. Judgments and Orders passed by the revisional Court and judgment and decrees passed by the J.S.C.C. In respect of both the portions of the house in dispute are set aside. Both the suits are decreed. 13. In 1970 rent of the whole house was Rs. 450 per month. House in dispute is double storied. By today’s standard the rent must be more than 15 or 20 times of the rent fixed in 1970 i.e. 37 years before. The Courts below dismissed the suit on utterly frivolous ground. The landlord is, therefore, entitled to compensatory costs which are determined @ Rs. 1500/- per month in addition to the rent of Rs. 450/-payable under the lease deeds. Suits were filed in 1979. Twenty eight years have passed since then. Damages @ Rs. 1500/- per month for 28 years come to Rs. 5,04,000/- (in round figure Rs. 5, lacs). However, an amount of Rs. One lac is deducted from this amount of Rs. 5 lacs for the reason that in the second writ petition absolutely no documents have been annexed. Even the impugned judgments have not been annexed. At the end of the writ petition it has been written that the documents are being annexed in the connected writ petitions i.e. first writ petition. Both the suits were not disposed of by common judgment. Similarly both the revisions were also not dismissed by common judgment. Judgments of both the Courts in both the cases were identical but separate. Even the judgment of O.S. No. 30 of 1979 and judgment of the revisional Court passed in revision directed against the judgment and decree passed in the said suit have not been annexed. It is an extremely clumsy manner of filing writ petition. In view of this a reduction of Rs. One lac from the compensatory cost is ordered. 14. Accordingly both the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned judgments orders and decrees are set aside. Suit for eviction as well as for recovery of rent asked for in the plaint are decreed. It is further directed that pendentelite and future rent and damages shall be paid by the tenants-respondents @ Rs. 450/- per month for the entire house till 31.5.2007. With effect from 1.6.2007 till actual vacation respondents shall be liable to pay rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 5000/- per month. 15. Cost of Rupees. It is further directed that pendentelite and future rent and damages shall be paid by the tenants-respondents @ Rs. 450/- per month for the entire house till 31.5.2007. With effect from 1.6.2007 till actual vacation respondents shall be liable to pay rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 5000/- per month. 15. Cost of Rupees. Four lacs is also awarded. This cost is not penal in nature but is only compensatory, as mentioned above. ————