JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 25.09.2013 delivered in Money Appeal No.12 of 2012 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4. By the said judgment, the judgment dated 23.04.2012 delivered in Money Suit No.06 of 2010 has been reversed by dismissing the suit inasmuch as by the judgment dated 23.04.2012 it had been observed that the plaintiff-appellant has clearly established misfeasance of the defendant, the respondent herein, despite his knowledge of availability of the room in Tripura Bhawan at Guwahati he provided the plaintiff-appellant a space in dormitory when he was undergoing treatment for his eye. The plaintiff-appellant was to stay in the dormitory on 06.01.2010, the day when his eye was operated. For arbitrariness or carelessness of the defendant-respondent, the plaintiff was not provided a double-beded room which he required and asked for staying with his escort. The same experience, the plaintiff-appellant has suffered on the subsequent dates. 3. According to the plaintiff-appellant, on 07.01.2010, the plaintiff was allotted one VIP room. On 06.01.2010, the VIP rooms were available as per the Boarder Statement [Exbt.12] but he was not allotted. Even on 07.01.2010 and onwards [inclusive of 13.01.2010], the plaintiff was allotted VIP room for his post operative recovery. The defendant was fully aware that the plaintiff might get infection as his eye was operated on 06.01.2010. Despite that the defendant-respondent allotted a bed in the dormitory. This is apparent from the bare reading of the plaint that only on 06.01.2010, the petitioner was not given a VIP room or a double-beded room. 4. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff-appellant served the notice of demand, but no remedy was provided to the plaintiff-appellant. Being persuaded by the circumstances, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for realization of the damage caused to his dignity, which according to the plaintiff-appellant is the essence of existential property. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted further that from the said boarder statement it would be apparent that on 06.01.2010, the type of room as requisitioned by the plaintiff was available and despite that the plaintiff-appellant was not given the room. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted further that from the said boarder statement it would be apparent that on 06.01.2010, the type of room as requisitioned by the plaintiff was available and despite that the plaintiff-appellant was not given the room. It appears from the said boarder statement dated 06.01.2010 that good number of vacant rooms under the VIP category and general category were available, but the appellant was not provided. 5. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that on 06.01.2010, the defendant was not at all at Guwahati and the plaintiff-appellant did not meet him. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has contended that in the cross-examination, the plaintiff-appellant has stated as under : “I cannot say whether I am not entitled to suits or VIP rooms. I cannot say on the date 2/1/2010 there is any room vacant as per my entitlement is available or not in the said Bhawan. I have no idea regarding the suit. I have no idea whether any AC is available in suit and VIP room. I have a problem relating to cornea (advanced kerato conus). I went to Sankar Netralaya on 5/1/2010 and there operation was held on 6/1/2010. Operation was successful. Thereafter I returned Tripura and went back to Gauhati Sankar Netralaya in the month of March for the treatment of my left eye. Tripura Bhawan is run by State Govt. and it is established for the welfare of the public. Maximum employees of the Tripura Bhawan are Govt. employee and the defendant of this case is a TCS officer. Before January, 2010 I never met with Debasis Bose, TCS Gr-I. The office of Tripura Bhawan, Gauhati did not tell me that they would not provide me any room. In dormitory room there are four beds, lights, fan attached bathroom are available. I do not have any idea about the construction of Tripura Bhawan, Gauhati and I also do not have any idea that Tripura Bhawan was completed on last part of 2009.” [Emphasis supplied] 6. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff-appellant has categorically stated : “On 2nd January, 2010 when I went to Tripura Bhawan, I met with caretaker and 3rd January onward I met with defendant everyday for my requirement.” 7. There is allegation of the defendant’s misbehaviour with the plaintiff-appellant. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff-appellant has categorically stated : “On 2nd January, 2010 when I went to Tripura Bhawan, I met with caretaker and 3rd January onward I met with defendant everyday for my requirement.” 7. There is allegation of the defendant’s misbehaviour with the plaintiff-appellant. PW-2 namely Sri Sudarshan Deb has testified that he came to know from the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant misbehaved and threatened the plaintiff on different occasions including on 13.01.2010 when he had asked the plaintiff-appellant to vacate the room. The defendant as well testified in the trial as DW-1 and admitted that the plaintiff was not allotted the VIP room on 2nd January 2010 following the notification issued by the Government of Tripura. The plaintiff was not entitled to VIP room as a matter of right. In the notification dated 30.01.1999, it has been stipulated who are the persons entitled to stay at Tripura Bhawan, Guwahati and the class of rooms they are entitled to. The defendant has contended that there is definite clause in the notification dated 30.01.1999, that the referred patient can be given AC room, if vacancy is available. It was published in the local newspaper that the plaintiff was deprived in Tripura Bhawan. Even the defendant-respondent has admitted that he has asked the plaintiff on 14.01.2010 to shift to the VIP room from the dormitory at the ground floor. 8. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted further that the allegation of causing harassment has not been proved and that would be established from a bare reading of the deposition of the plaintiff, [the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination]. 9. Be that as it may, when this appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was framed : “1. Whether the appellate Court has failed to interpret and appreciate Exbt.B and Exbt.10 in its proper perspective?” 10. The notification dated 30.01.1999 (Exbt.10) has provided the catalogue of persons who are entitled to get the VIP rooms [see Clause-10]. It has been provided there that the referred patients and their escorts with referral certificate from the Standing Medical Board are entitled to get the accommodation in Tripura Bhawan and such entitlement is always subject to availability of rooms. 11. Exbt.B is a room-rate information. It has been provided there that the referred patients and their escorts with referral certificate from the Standing Medical Board are entitled to get the accommodation in Tripura Bhawan and such entitlement is always subject to availability of rooms. 11. Exbt.B is a room-rate information. From that it surfaces that for the referred patient, the rate for one seat in non-AC room was Rs.15/- and in AC room was Rs.50/- in the Bhawans, on production of the referral certificate. These documents definitely show that on availability of rooms, the referred patients can be accommodated in the Bhawans at the subsidised rate. On 06.01.2010, A/C rooms were available but that was not given to the plaintiff-appellant. This is the perspective which is relevant for purpose of determining this appeal. 12. On scrutiny of the records, it appears to this court that no notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC was ever served on the defendant-respondent. Except one complaint dated 27.01.2010 submitted to the Commissioner cum Secretary, General Administration (Secretariat Administration) Department, Government of Tripura there was no such notice in the evidence. In the said complaint, there is no demand against the defendant- respondent. There is no statement regarding the cause of action which is the crux of notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC and hence, the suit ought to have been shot down at the threshold for the stringent provisions as made under Section 80(1) of the CPC. The analysis as provided by the trial court in Para-29 of the judgment dated 23.04.2012 is unsustainable. For purpose of reference para-29 is reproduced hereunder : “29. In the instant case Plaintiff vide Ext.1 served legal notice upon defendant stating his grievance and asking compensation but no reply has been made. From Ext.1 it is seen that the said notice was received by the concerned department on 27.01.2010 and the instant suit was filed on 31.05.2010; i.e., after expiry of 2(two) months as per section 80 CPC and the contents of the notice clearly stated the grievance or cause of action. Accordingly, Plaintiff served legal notice as per section 80 CPC. Hence, point no.(A) is decided in positive.” 13. The trial court has committed a grave error in reading the so called notice [Exbt.1] as the notice under Section 80(1), CPC. Exbt.1 is the written complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, G.A.(S.A.) Department, Government of Tripura. Accordingly, Plaintiff served legal notice as per section 80 CPC. Hence, point no.(A) is decided in positive.” 13. The trial court has committed a grave error in reading the so called notice [Exbt.1] as the notice under Section 80(1), CPC. Exbt.1 is the written complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, G.A.(S.A.) Department, Government of Tripura. Even that complaint is not addressed to the defendant. That complaint is against the defendant-respondent to his departmental authority. There is no reference to any cause of action or statement in respect of failure of obligation, liability or demand in the said notice. The failure to discharge the demand would only give rise to the occasion for instituting a suit for realising the damage or a title suit for declaration of damage and for realisation of the said amount as a consequential relief. But the complaint as phrased in the manner as stated above cannot be a substitute of the notice under Section 80(1) CPC. Moreover, such notice was not served on the defendant-respondent. 14. The law in respect of Section 80, CPC has been well- enunciated in Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 . In that report, the apex court has enunciated thus: “Section 80(1) of the CPC requires prior notice of two months to be served on the Government as a condition for filing a suit except when there is urgency for interim order in which case the Court may not insist on the rigid rule of prior notice. The two months period has been provided for so that the Government shall examine the claim put up in the notice and has sufficient time to send a suitable reply. The underlying object is to curtail the litigation. The object also is to curtail the area of dispute and controversy. Similar provisions also exist in various other legislations as well. Wherever the statutory provision requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit and prescribed period therefore, it is not only necessary for the governments or departments or other statutory bodies to send a reply to such a notice but it is further necessary to properly deal with all material points and issues raised in the notice.” [Emphasis supplied] 15. In State of A.P. versus Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu reported in AIR 1965 SC 11 , the apex court had observed that Section 80 is imperative and must strictly be construed. But such construction should be reasonable. Every venial error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as a peg to him a defence to defeat a just claim. The relevant part of the said report is gainfully reproduced : “This section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed : failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit.” For purpose of further reference Section 80(1) CPC is extracted hereunder: “80. Notice.-[(1)] [Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of— (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [except where it relates to a railway,] a Secretary to that Government; [(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway;] [(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;] (c) in the case of a suit against [any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.” It is clear that for instituting any suit against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been [delivered to, or left at the office of] any suit cannot be instituted against the Government or the Public Officer. 16. 16. There cannot be any dispte and it is admitted by the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant was a public officer as he was borne in the cadre of Tripura Civil Service (Grade-I) and he was discharging his duties as the Joint Resident Commissioner, Tripura Bhawan at Guwahati, but he was not given any notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC before instituting the suit. There was no urgent relief which might enable the plaintiff-appellant to get leave under Section 80(2) of the CPC. Without leave when such suit is instituted the suit should have been shot down at threshold. But the trial court has completely misconstrued the provision and appreciated the fact perversely so far the issuance under Section 80 of the CPC is concerned. Resultantly, the suit has been held to be maintainable. The cumulative reading of these observations as made above is that the suit was not maintainable. 17. The defendant-respondent, however, did not raise that issue in the first appeal but this is the duty of the court to look into and examine that aspect of the matter. The defendant who happens to be a public officer was entitled to the right to place his record, even before the suit is instituted. This is an imperative for the plaintiff to discharge that obligation as required under Section 80(1) CPC. Since, there was no attempt in this regard, the suit cannot be held sustainable. Having observed thus, this appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit. Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter send down the records.