JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satish Kumar Rai, Senior Panel Counsel Government of India appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondents No.5 to 8 are formal party. 2. The suit of the petitioner for eviction of the respondents No.1 to 4 on the ground of arrears of rent and material alteration was allowed by the Small Causes Court holding the notice determining the tenancy to be a valid notice with the further findings that the respondents No. 1 to 4 had defaulted in payment of rent for over 4 months and that they have materially altered the structure so as to disfigure it and diminishing its value and utility. 3. The revisional court by the impugned judgement and order dated 13.05.2010 allowed the revision of the respondents No. 1 to 4 only for the reason that the notice determining the tenancy is invalid without discussing and touching the findings on arrears of rent and material alteration. 4. The aforesaid revisional order has been impugned by this petition. 5. The submission is that the revisional court has neither disagreed with findings of the trial court holding the notice to be valid nor has specifically pointed out any material defect in the notice so as to hold it to be invalid. 6. The notice determining the tenancy of the respondents No. 1 to 4 is annexure-1 to the petition. It is dated 2nd January, 1987 and has been given by Sri A.C. Jain, Advocate on behalf of and under instructions of the petitioner. It is addressed all the respondents No.1 to 4. It clearly mentions that it is a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and for determination of tenancy under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the T.P. Act). The respondents No. 1 to 4 have defaulted in payment of rent for 62 months and have materially altered the building so as to disfigure it. The notice specifically states that the petitioner no longer intends to keep the respondents No. 1 to 4 as tenants and that their tenancy stand determined. They are called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notice and to deliver possession of the same, failing which legal action shall be taken. 7. They are called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notice and to deliver possession of the same, failing which legal action shall be taken. 7. A bare perusal of the notice reveals that it is a composite notice of demand of rent and determination of tenancy. The tenancy has been determined by giving a 30 days clear notice. It is also a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. which is a mandatory precondition for filing a suit against the Government of India unless exempted by the court. 8. There is no law which prescribes that the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has to be given separately or that a composite notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and 106 of the T.P. Act is not permissible and valid. 9. The purpose of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is to determine the tenancy and to give information of the proposed legal action. The purpose of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is to give the authorities of the central Government sufficient information regarding the proposed legal action. 10. The service of notice is not being denied. It determines the tenancy and gives information of the proposed legal action. Both the above purposes stand duly served by the aforesaid composite notice. The notice was given in January, 1987 and the suit was instituted in 1989 which allowed more than two months of notice time to the authorities of the Central Government as contemplated under Section 80 C.P.C. Thus, the aforesaid notice not only fulfils the essential requisites of a valid notice provided under Section 106 of the T.P.Act as well as under Section 80 C.P.C. 11. The revisional court has not assigned any specific reason for holding the notice to be invalid except for casually stating the notice is unclear, it does not specify the exact amount of rent due and outstanding and the amount of taxes apart from that there is no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. 12. All the above reasons for holding the notice to be invalid are not at all material and relevant. All the above reasons for holding the notice to be invalid are not at all material and relevant. The only material aspect in a notice is that it should conform to the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. and 106 of the T.P. Act and that the essentials for seeking eviction of the tenant as contained in Section 20 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are satisfied. 13. As stated the earlier, the aforesaid notice satisfies all the above aspects of the matter and that the revisional court has not nonsuited the petitioner only on irrelevant considerations. 14. In view of above, the revisional judgement and order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Firozabad in S.C.C. Revision No.2 of 2005 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the revisional court for decision afresh in accordance with law. The revisional court will proceed and decide the suit expeditiously within a period six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.