- (1.) The Municipality Bhatinda moved an application dated March 8, 1977 (P.1) against Kala Ram respondent for his eviction from the shop No. 4 situate at Mall Road, Bhatinda, and for the recovery of damages for unauthorised use and occupation thereof at the rate of Rs. 288/- per month. The Municipality alleged that the shop was let out to the respondent at Rs. 240/- per month for a period of five years from August 1, 1971 to July 31, 1976, by lease-deed dated April 5, 1973. After the expiry of the lease period the respondent was in unauthorised occupation of the shop with effect from August 1, 1976. The Municipality prayed for his eviction and also for an order for the payment of damages for use and occupation of the shop with effect from August 1, 1976. On May 26, 1977, the Collector issued notice (R.1) under section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereafter the Act). The respondent submitted his reply dated July 22, 1977 (P.3). On January 27, 1978, the Collector issued another notice under section 4 of the Act to the respondent which reads: "Whereas I, as the undersigned, am of the opinion of the ground specified below that you are in unauthorised possession of the public premises mentioned in the scheduled below and that you should be evicted from the premises: Grounds: That you are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises mentioned in the Schedule. Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, I (omitted) on or before 28.2.1978 why such an order of "eviction should not be made".
(2.) The respondent submitted his reply dated February 28, 1978 (R.2) to the notice under Section 4 of the Act. After recording the evidence led by the parties the Collector vide order dated January 17, 1979, (P. 4) ordered the eviction of the respondent and also directed him to pay Rs. 288/- per month with effect from August 1, 1976. The respondent filed an appeal against the order P.4. The Commissioner vide order dated April 16, 1981, (P.5) held that notice under section 4 of the Act was bad inasmuch as it was not issued when the application was filed before the Collector and was in fact issued during the pendency of the case. The order of ejectment of the respondent was set aside. The order of the Collector regarding damages for use and occupation of the shop in dispute was also modified. The respondent was allowed to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and that too in instalment of Rs. 100/- per month. The petitioner has assailed the order P.5, in the present writ petition.
(3.) The relevant part of Section 4 of the Act reads: "4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction--(1) If the Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situate within the jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, the Collector shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided, a notice in a writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall--(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, and.................;