MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Mohanlal has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act) be declared void and the order passed by the Estate Officer, Udaipur, on 6th January, 1969, and upheld by the District Judge, Udaipur, by his Judgment dated 27th February, 1969, be quashed and the respondents may be directed to restore the possession of shop No. 69 to the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise xo this writ petition are as follows. The petitioner was resident of village Karia. He wanted a shop to start his business in the town of Udaipur, but since the petitioner was an outsider, the Public Works Department which owned shop No. 69 refused to let out shop to the petitioner unless somebody who was a resident of the town of Udaipur executed a rent deed in favour of the Executive Engineer who was managing the State shops. The petitioner approached one Nandlal Mahajan who was in the service of Government and Nandlal agreed to oblige the petitioner by executing a rent note for shop No. 69. That rent note was written by Nandlal on 30th of October, 1962, and it was agreed that yearly rent of Rs. 165/ - shall be paid to the State Government. Accordingly to the petitioner's averments it was the petitioner for whom the shop was taken on rent and he started his grain business in that shop from 31st of October, 1952 and since then he had been in possession of this shop. Nandlal died in the year 1966 but after his death the rent was paid by the petitioner on behalf of Nandlal and the Department passed on the receipts in the name of Nandlal. In the year 1956 it is alleged that the petitioner entered into a partnership business with one Ambalal and that that partnership business was carried on from the shop which was rented out by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department to Nandlal. On 13th of December, 1968, a notice was served on the petitioner by the Estate Officer, Udaipur, asking him to attend his office on the 30th of December, 1968. It is said that the Estate Officer recorded the petitioner's statement without giving him any opportunity to show cause to why ejectment proceeding under the Act may not be taken against him. It is said that Ambalal was also examined by respondent No. 3 the Estate Officer and then he passed an order on 6th of January, 1969, declaring the petitioner and Ambalal as unauthorised occupants of the shop and directed both the petitioner and Ambalal to be ejected from that shop within 30 days from the date of the said order. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the District Judge, Udaipur, challenging the validity of the impugned order on the ground that it was passed without giving him any notice under Section 4 of the Act, but the learned Judge held that the notice issued to the petitioner on 13th of December, 1968 informing the petitioner about the next date was sufficient compliance of Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the learned Judge rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, come to this Court challenging the vires of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act as well as the correctness of the impugned order and the appellate order passed by the District Judge on the ground that the noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act vitiates the proceedings taken by the Estate Officer.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, did not press his objection regarding the vires of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.