Man Mohan Singh Gujaral, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, dated the 9th June, 1966, passed under section 9 of the Public Premises & Lard (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act No. 31 of 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), upholding that of the Collector Fazilka, dated the 4th June, 1965.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was allotted 5 bighas of land comprised in khasra No. 4828/2024 on the 25th May, 1960 in an auction held by the Municipal Committee. Abohar (respondent No. 3) on leasehold basis at a yearly lease of Rs. 500 and that out of this land possession of actually four bighas of land only was delivered to him. It is further asserted that it was, agreed between the parties that the petitioner would not be disturbed for a period of ten years. The allegation further is that in contravention of this agreement respondent No. 3 auctioned the leasehold rights of this land on the 9th June, 1963, in favour of a third party and thereafter the Municipal Committee filed an application under the Act for the eviction of the petitioner and also for recovery of damages for unauthorised occupation. On this application notice was issued to the petitioner and, though the petitioner contested the application, an order of eviction was passed against him and the appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur. Hence the present petition to challenge both these orders.
(3.) THE orders of the authorities under the Act have been challenged on two grounds namely, that the notice issued to the petitioner was not in Form A as prescribed under the Rules made under the Act and that the grounds on which the order or eviction was based were not specified in the notice. So for as the second ground is concerned, there is no material on the record to hold that the notice did not contain the grounds on which the eviction was proposed as the notice served on the petitioner has not been placed on the record. In the absence of the notice it is not possible to conclude that there was any merit in the contention that the grounds were not specified in the notice.;