MAYA DEVI KESWANI Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 1964 Act) were initiated by the Indian Red Cross Society respondent No. 3 (for short IRCS) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated in the Red Cross Campus outside Sanganeri Gate Jaipur. Learned Estate Officer (Additional District Magistrate Judicial) Jaipur vide judgment/order dated December 9, 1998 declared the petitioner to be the unauthorised occupant of the disputed premises and directed that notice be given to the petitioner for vacating the premises within thirty days. The IRCS was also asked to file statement showing damages caused to it after Sept. 30, 1997. The petitioner assailed the said order of the Estate Officer by filing an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City vide order dated April 13, 1999 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the aforesaid orders of the Estate Officer and the appellate authority as well as notice issued under Section 4(1) of 1964 Act.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that IRCS let out to the petitioner a premises measuring 119 sq. ft. in the Red Cross Camps outside Sanganerit Gate Jaipur for running medical shop on July 2, 1987 and the lease deed was executed by the Chairman of the IRCS. After expiry of two years, the IRCS executed another lease deed for a period of 2 years and yearly rent was increased. Again after expiry of two years revised lease deed was executed on October 1, 1991 and the duration of the lease deed was made to be six years and rent was increased to twelve and half per cent payable quarterly.

(3.) MR . Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the premises in question is not covered under the definition of public premises as incorporated in Section 2(b)(x) of the 1964 Act. It is further contended that provisions contained in Section 4 of 1964 Act which are mandatory in nature have been flouted. No opinion was formed by the Estate Officer before issuance of notice under Section 4 of the 1964 Act as no necessary material was placed before the Estate Officer to form the opinion. Notice under Section 4 was issued on October 18, 1997 whereas the documents were submitted on January 16, 1998. Section 4(2)(b) of 1964 Act requires notice not to be earlier that 10 days, whereas notice was issued on October 18, 1997 for hearing on October 24, 1997. Notice under Section 4 of 1964 Act was vague as grounds were not clearly mentioned. No details that the premises was public premises. It is further urged that the premises in question will again be given on lease to some other person therefore it is not necessary to evict the petitioner from the said property. The Estate Officer has no jurisdiction over the property in question, which is nazul property. As no eviction was sought by the State Government the impugned orders of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside. Reliance is placed on S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi (1981) 3 SCC 431, M/s Wire Netting Stores v. The Delhi Development Authority (1969(3) SCC 415), Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1971 WLN 646) : (1981) 1 SCC 664, Mrs. Kulsom Malick v. District Judge Jaipur City, 1989(1) RLR 22, Jai Charan Lal v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1968 SC 5), Minoo Framroze Balsara v. Union of India, AIR 1992 Bombay 375, Radhey Shyam v. Vijai Singh, 1972 WLN 772, 1999(1) WLC 604, 1986 RLR 966.