VAID SHRI VIDHYADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant of Shri Raghunathji temple, Bikaner of a small room for which he was paying rent of Rs. 100/-per month. He was served with a notice dt. 16. 8. 84 u/s. 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short `the Act') by the respondent No. 2 the Estate Officer calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and to show cause as to why the orders of eviction should not be passed against him (Anx. 12 ). In the impugned notice name of the temple and other relevant facts for eviction were not mentioned at all. Due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner was unable to remain present before the Estate Officer on 16. 4. 84. THErefore, without giving further opportunity to petitioner straightaway ex parte proceedings ordered against the petitioner and thereafter by an order dt. 23. 10. 1985 respondent No. 2 directed the eviction of the petitioner and also ordered recovery of rent from the petitioner @ Rs. 100/-per month from 25. 6. 1981 onwards (Anx. 13 ).

(2.) IN pursuance of the impugned order at Anx. 13 dt. 23. 10. 1985 notice dt. 4. 12. 1985 was issued against the petitioner ordering him to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice (Anx. 14 ).

(3.) AS stated earlier the learned District Judge either should have given at least one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 by accepting his appeal or he should have decided his appeal after taking the material documents on record which he fails to do. Hence, the impugned order at Anx. 16 is also required to be set aside.