BHONRI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JAIPUR CITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 25. 8. 1990 (Annex. 9) passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 alone against the order dated 13-9-1985 (Annx. 7) passed by the Estate Officer appointed under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (the Act) directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute i. e. shop bearing No. P-136, Siredhodi Bazar, Chowkri Ramchandraji, Jaipur. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under : -

(2.) ONE Chothmal was in occupation of the property in dispute at a monthly rent of 0. 37 paise under the lease-deed dated 12-3-1958 (Annx. 2) executed between the State of Rajasthan (the State) and Chothmal. After the death of Chothmal, the petitioners No. 1. and 2, who are mother and son respectively and have been in possession of the property in dispute claiming to be heirs of Chothmal, wanted that the lease should be renewed in their favour and, it appears, that it was decided to treat them as tenants of the property in dispute subject to their executing fresh lease-deed and agreeing to pay rent at the P. W. D. schedule rate w. e. f. 1. 11. 1976 at the rate of Rs. 48/- per month. Since the petitioners failed to pay any rent and to execute the fresh lease-deed, the State terminated their tenancy vide notice dated 15-1-1981 (Annex. 3), and called upon them to deliver peaceful possession of the property in dispute on the expiry of the term of their lease. Since the petitioners failed to do so, petition dated 29. 1. 1985 (Annex. 4) was filed before the Estate Officer stating that as the petitioners had continued to be in occupation of the property in dispute even inspite of service of notice dated 15-1-1981 (Annx. 3) which had been received by them on 16. 1. 1981, they were in unauthorised occupation thereof and praying that they be evicted therefrom. The Estate Officer issued notice dated 26-2-1985 (Annx. 5) under section 4 (1) of the Act to the petitioners stating that he was of the opinion that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute on the ground that their tenancy had been terminated vide notice dated 15-1-1981 (Annx. 3) served on them on 16-1-1981 and directed them to appear before him and to show cause on 18-3-1985 why an order directing their eviction from the property in dispute should not be passed. On 18-3-1985, the petitioner No. 2 Jagdish appeared before the Estate Officer and sought adjournment on the ground that he and his mother i. e. petitioner No. 1 was to be represented by a lawyer who had gone to Jodhpur. The Estate Officer, thereupon, adjourned the case to 15-4-1985. On 15-4- 1985, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and as such the case was adjourned to 26-4-1985 for ex-parte evidence of the State. On 26-4-1985, Shri Arun Sharma, Advocate appeared and presented Vakalatnama executed by the petitioners in favour of Shri S. N. Sharma, Advocate and sought an adjournment for filing the reply to the show cause notice. The case was thus adjourned to 18-5-1985. On 18-5-1985, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and, as such, the case was adjourned to 14-6-1985 for the ex-parte evidence of the State. The State, however, sought adjournments on 14-6-1985, 20-7-1985, 9. 8. 1985, 6-9-1985 and the case was fixed for the ex-parte evidence of the State on 13-9- 1985, on which date the State examined Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma as P. W.-l and closed its evidence. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners on either of the above said dates. After considering the evidence produced on behalf of the State, the Estate Officer passed order dated 13-9-1985 (Annx. 7) holding that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute after termination of their tenancy by service of notice dated 15-1-1981 (Annx. 3) and were liable to be evicted therefrom and directed that the notice under section 5 (1) of the Act be issued. An application for review of the above said order moved before the Estate Officer after some days of the passing of the order (Annx. 7) was dismissed by him on 11-10-1985. Feeling aggrieved from the order of eviction dated 13-9-1985 (Annex. 7) passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner No. 1 alone filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who after hearing it dismissed it vide order dated 25-8-1990 (Annex. 9 ). Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT has next been contended by Shri Lodha that the petitioners are illiterate and are not conversant with the English language and that the notice dated 15-1-1981 terminating their tenancy was in English language and that after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Official Language Act, 1956 the Government correspondences have to be in Hindi language and, as such, the notice is invalid and of no consequence. Reliance has been placed on the Single Bench decision of this Court in case "gopal Mali vs. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation" (1 ). I have gone through the said ruling. IT was a case where a reasonable notice under section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 was required to be served on a land-holder before the officers concerned entered his land and deprived him of the use thereof for some period. The petitioner in that case was a villager and had no knowledge of the contents of the notice which itself was under attack in the writ petition and the notice was held to be not reasonable in terms of section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 on the ground that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner of the case. In the present case, both the petitioners are residents of Jaipur and it was no where contended before the learned District Judge that they did not know the contents of the notice or had no means of knowing the same and were prejudiced by service of notice in English language. Although, it has been mentioned in the writ petition that the review petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the Estate Officer, no copy of the application seeking review was filed and from the record I find that even in the application moved by the petitioner No. l alone for review of the order and presented before the Estate Officer on 5-10-1985 she did not raise any such ground. In my view, the petitioners cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any way by the notice in question not being in Hindi language. Even otherwise, a letter/notice sent by the any office of the State Government in English language cannot be said to be invalid on this point itself. I have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling this argument of Shri Lodha as well.