As per case facts, the plaintiff filed an application for a possession warrant against the defendant under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882, claiming the defendant ... was a permissive user whose permission had been revoked. The defendant, a relative, was in possession and had filed civil suits seeking an injunction and specific performance, arguing he had purchased the property. The Small Cause Court granted the possession warrant. The defendant appealed to the High Court, contending that the lack of written notice for permission revocation made the Section 41 application invalid. The question arose whether a written notice for permission revocation is statutorily required under Section 41 of the Act for a plaintiff to seek a possession warrant. Finally, the High Court ruled that Section 41 does not mandate a written communication to revoke permission; it only requires that permission has determined or been withdrawn and a request for possession has been made. Applying the Doctrine of Cassus Omissus, the Court stated it cannot add requirements not explicitly in the statute. The defendant's prior legal actions against dispossession clearly showed he was aware of the permission revocation, which constituted a deemed request for vacant possession. Therefore, the High Court found no error in the Small Cause Court's decision and rejected the revision.