CHAMAN LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER PATIAL DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Annexure P. 1) by which an application filed by the Municipal Committee, Gobindgarh (respondent No. 2) under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for his eviction from the shop was allowed His appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala also having been dismissed vide orders dated January 12, 1988 (Annexure P. 2) the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the Municipal Committee has been allowed without service of any notice on the petitioner. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to contend that it was incumbent on the Collector to have served a notice in accordance with the provisions of law before proceeding to accept the application filed by the Municipal Committee. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that notice was duly served on Raj Kumar, who is a partner of the petitioner and in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the requirement of service of notice should be deemed to have been complied with.

(3.) SECTION 4 of the Act provides as under :-o