A notice meeting Section 385’s requirements remains valid despite being labelled under Section 80 CPC.

The parties entered into a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 27 July 2018 for operation of The Connaught hotel.

The Plaintiff claimed that COVID-19 restrictions and related circumstances triggered the Agreement’s force majeure clause, excusing payment of licence fees for specified periods and extending the licence term.

It sought declarations concerning those rights and adjustment of amounts already paid.

The Defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, alleging, among other grounds, failure to give notice under Section 385 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act), limitation, the bar under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and failure to seek consequential relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Plaintiff had sent a notice dated 14 November 2025, labelled as a notice under Section 80 CPC.

1. Whether the notice dated 14 November 2025 satisfied the requirements of Section 385 of the NDMC Act despite being labelled as a notice under Section 80 CPC.

2. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation, including under Section 385(2) of the NDMC Act and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Whether the suit was barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act or was defective for failure to claim consequential relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. Whether, on the plaint and material considered at this stage, any ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was established.

Section 385(1) of the NDMC Act requires prior written notice stating the cause of action, relief sought, compensation claimed, and plaintiff’s name and residence before a suit concerning an act done or purportedly done under the Act may be instituted; Section 385(2) prescribes a six-month period for such suits, subject to its stated exceptions.

The substance and contents of a notice, rather than its label, determine whether it meets statutory requirements.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint must be read as a whole, and rejection is justified only where a statutory ground is established from its averments; the defendant’s case cannot substitute for that inquiry.

Limitation may involve a mixed question of law and fact where the asserted cause of action depends on later events.

The Court also considered Clause 20.3 of the Agreement, requiring an attempt at amicable resolution, and the statutory provisions invoked under the Public Premises Act and Specific Relief Act.

The Court found that the 14 November 2025 notice set out the dispute, cause of action, relief sought, and Plaintiff’s particulars, and therefore met Section 385’s substantive requirements despite its Section 80 CPC label.

On limitation, although the Defendant relied on an earlier rejection in 2022, the record referred to subsequent correspondence and amicable-resolution efforts, including communications in 2025.

Whether those events gave rise to a fresh cause of action was not determinable at the rejection stage and was left for trial.

The Court held that the suit concerned enforcement of contractual rights, not eviction proceedings, so Section 15 of the Public Premises Act was not attracted.

It also accepted that, on the Plaintiff’s case, the amount remained to be crystallised following the declaration sought and no relevant demand notice had been issued, so the proviso to Section 34 did not warrant rejection at this stage.

Applying the restrictive Order VII Rule 11 standard, the Court declined to reject the plaint.

The Defendant’s Order VII Rule 11 application was rejected, and the suit was directed to be listed before the Roster Bench on 2 November 2026.