ROOP KAUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh, dismissing the petitioners appeal assailing the order dated 26.3.2001 passed by the Collector, Solan. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2.) PETITIONER No.1 is the mother of petitioners No. 2 to 5. Shri Prem Chand husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the other petitioners was a tenant in Shop No.4, village Dangyar, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan H.P. owned by respondent No.3 and after his death the tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs including the petitioners. The tenancy was determined vide notice dated 27.9.1997. Admitted case is that no notice was sent to petitioner No.1 Roop Kaur. The premises were not vacated, therefore, proceedings for eviction under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were initiated by filing the petition under the Act before the Collector, Solan. In the said petition, one of the legal heirs, namely, Smt. Rita was not impleaded as a party and Smt. Roop Kaur upon whom no notice of termination was served was arrayed as one of the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has assailed both the orders on the ground that no notice as required u/s 3 of the Act was ever served upon Smt. Roop Kaur and petitioners Anuradha and Rajeev being minors ought to have been sued through natural guardian. In any case one of the legal heirs having been left out, no eviction can take place qua her. According to him, the tenancy is not common and, therefore, individual notice ought to have been served upon all the petitioners