JUDGMENT/ORDER M.S.JAWALKAR, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dtd. 20/02/2006 passed by 7thAdhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.83/1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/original defendant against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/12/1998 passed by 2ndJoint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.2430/1994. 3. This Court on 21/07/2008 has admitted the present appeal on following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether the Courts could have recorded a finding that the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 was illegal and arbitrary without considering the admission of the plaintiff in his cross-examination that the demand notices were received by the plaintiff but, he had not deposited the license fee in spite of the same? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts could have held that the suit was not bad for absence of notice under Sec. 115 of the N.I.T. Act?" 4. The case of the Plaintiff is as under: The plaintiff/respondent is the lessee of Plot No.4981 in the Industrial Basti Scheme at Nagpur since 05/12/1977 on permanent basis. The defendant/appellant had given the same to her in the public auction at Rs.75.00 p.m. The appellant put her in possession of the same in the year 1978. However, some of the officials of the appellants are influenced by some other person and therefore, they are not accepting the amount of rent from her inspite of the efforts made by her. The appellant threatened her by issuing notices that she would be dispossessed from the building. Accordingly the appellant issued the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 calling upon her to vacate the suit plot, which she received on 14/12/1994. After receiving notice on 14/12/1994, she went to the office of the appellant but the cashier refused to accept the amount mentioned in the notice. She claimed the declaration that the notice issued by the appellant is null and void and the appellant has no right to evict her from the suit plot without following the process of law and for perpetual injunction against the appellant restraining him from interfering in her possession. 5. The appellant NIT has come with the case that inspite of repeated demands and notices having been issued to the respondent, she has not paid amount of the license fee since the year 1987. 5. The appellant NIT has come with the case that inspite of repeated demands and notices having been issued to the respondent, she has not paid amount of the license fee since the year 1987. Therefore, show cause notice dtd. 04/10/1989 was issued to her as to why her allotment of the suit plot to her should not be cancelled. Thereafter, reminders were issued on 20/04/1990 and 11/01/1991. Inspite of that, she did not comply with the notice and did not comply the terms and conditions of the allotment which she had accepted. Therefore, her license was cancelled w.e.f. 13/08/1991. Even thereafter she did not vacate the suit plot. Hence the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 was issued to her. The suit plot was allotted to her for running the business of fire wood stall. However, she has changed the user and has erected the chawl and leased out the same on rent to various person. Therefore, the allotment of the suit in her favour has ben cancelled by the notice dtd. 07/12/1994. The learned Trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant had filed RCA No.83/1999 before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The above said judgment and decree is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for appellant contended that the learned Courts below failed to see that the appellant had not executed any lease in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Even the license given to the respondent/plaintiff was not by any registered document. The license was in respect of an open land which was required to be used only for a specific purpose of running a fire wood stall. The respondent/plaintiff had not only breached the terms and conditions of license, but had also changed the user of the land by making an unauthorized construction and letting out the constructed area for commercial purpose. The learned Courts below failed to see that the licensee had taken law in his own hands and therefore not entitled to any protection from this Court. It is further contended that the Courts below further failed to see that there was no cogent evidence to prove that the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 issued by the defendant/appellant was illegal and arbitrary without recording any specific finding. It is further contended that the Courts below further failed to see that there was no cogent evidence to prove that the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 issued by the defendant/appellant was illegal and arbitrary without recording any specific finding. The Courts below have erroneously ruled that the said notice dtd. 07/12/1994 was illegal and arbitrary. Hence the order of Courts below needs to be set aside. 7. The learned Counsel for appellant relied on following citations: 1) Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur Vs. Bhagwandas s/o Arjuniji Meshram, since deceased, through his LR's, reported in 2021 (1) ABR 51: AIR Online 2020 Bom 1966. 2) Smt. Jankibai Jaiswal Bahu Udhesiya Sanstha Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and another, reported in 2013 (1) ALL MR 55. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for appellant. In spite of service, respondent remained absence. In view of Substantial Questions of Law framed by this Court, main ground to challenge the order passed by both the Courts below is that the finding recorded by both the Courts below that notice dtd. 07/12/1994 was illegal and arbitrary without considering the admission in the deposition of plaintiff in her cross-examination that the demand notice were received by the plaintiff but she had not deposited license fees. The another ground of challenge is that whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court ought to have held that the suit was bad for absence of notice under Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act. 9. So far as the First Substantial Question of Law is concerned, the learned Trial Court held that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant did not accept the amount of rent from plaintiff mentioned in notice dtd. 07/12/1994. The learned Trial Court held that defendant has not produced any evidence on record to show that the plaintiff did receive the said notice dtd. 07/12/1994. However, if deposition of plaintiff is perused, she has clearly admitted that she has received demand notice from the defendant and last one was dtd. 07/12/1994. Though, she has contended that she went to pay the amount, it was not accepted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. This reason appears to be not probable because there was no reason to Nagpur Improvement Trust to refuse to accept the amount unless it is less than amount demanded. 07/12/1994. Though, she has contended that she went to pay the amount, it was not accepted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. This reason appears to be not probable because there was no reason to Nagpur Improvement Trust to refuse to accept the amount unless it is less than amount demanded. The learned Lower Court in view of the fact that the defendant have not placed the document on record to show that license of plaintiff was terminated and intimation in that regard was duly sent to the plaintiff, therefore held that in absence of any evidence, the notice dtd. 07/12/1994 is arbitrary and against principle of natural justice. The learned Appellate Court also taken the similar view and held that no documentary evidence forming the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties is placed on record. The learned Appellate Court held that notice Exhibit 33, dtd. 07/12/1994 is not legal and as per law. In absence of any document throwing light in the terms and conditions and the terms of allotment, the defendant/appellant is not entitled to cancel the allotment. As such, both the Courts below held that notice Exhibit 33 dtd. 07/12/1994 is arbitrary without supported by any contract between the parties or any legal provisions and is held as illegal and void ab initio. So far as compliance of notice under Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act is concerned, both the Courts below held that as notice issued was arbitrary and illegal and void ab initio there was no need for compliance of Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act. 10. The learned Counsel for appellant drawn my attention to the deposition of plaintiff wherein she has admitted that she has received a notice dtd. 07/12/1994. It is contended that in view of this fact, it was not necessary to produce any document. Facts which are admitted need not be proved. Even if, as per argument of learned Counsel for appellant, it is presumed that the plaintiff had received the said notice, the Nagpur Improvement Trust failed to produce any document which could have thrown light on the terms and conditions of allotment. As such, there is no document placed on record by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to show that the notice was issued as per provisions of law. As such, there is no document placed on record by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to show that the notice was issued as per provisions of law. The learned Counsel for appellant further submitted that even it is presumed that notice was illegal still compliance of Sec. 115 is mandatory. 11. The learned Counsel for appellant relied on Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur (supra), wherein this Court relied on State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Shri Chander Kant (1977) 1 SCC 257 ( AIR 1977 SC 148 ) wherein it is held that plaintiff filed suit against the Trust without prior intimation to Trust, not proper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Chander Kant (supra), held that the word "act" extends to illegal omissions also and no distinction can be made between acts done illegally and in bad faith and the acts done bonafide in official capacity and therefore, all sorts of acts are covered by the expression "in respect of anything purporting to be done under this Act". It is submitted that whether the act is bonafide or malafide would be a question of fact, and therefore, statutory notice under Sec. 115 of the Act is mandatory prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. 12. The learned Counsel for appellant also relied on Smt. Jankibai Jaiswal Bahu Udhesiya Sanstha (supra) wherein this Court held that Civil Court cannot adjudicate issue unless institution of suit is in compliance with Sec. 115. Requirement of issuance of notice to Nagpur Improvement Trust under Sec. 115 would not depend upon finding recorded by Civil Court that action of Nagpur Improvement Trust is arbitrary. This finding held that suit is bad in law for want of notice under Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, to be upheld. 13. In the present matter also admittedly there was no notice before filing suit by the plaintiff to Nagpur Improvement Trust. The finding recorded by both the Courts below that compliance is not necessary as Act of Nagpur Improvement Trust was arbitrary. This finding is patently erroneous in view of the settled law position. As such, suit is liable to be dismissed for want of compliance of Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Substantial Questions of Law answered accordingly. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i) The Second Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and order dtd. This finding is patently erroneous in view of the settled law position. As such, suit is liable to be dismissed for want of compliance of Sec. 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Substantial Questions of Law answered accordingly. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i) The Second Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and order dtd. 20/02/2006 passed by 7th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.83/1999 and judgment and decree dtd. 31/12/1998 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.2430/1994 are hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The suit is dismissed. iv) Decree be drawn up accordingly. v) The Nagpur Improvement Trust is at liberty to issue fresh notice in view of lapse of period of 28 years.