SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant of Shri Raghunathji temple, Bikaner of a small room for which he was paying rent of Rs. 100/-per month. He was served with a notice dt. 16. 8. 84 u/s. 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short `the Act') by the respondent No. 2 the Estate Officer calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and to show cause as to why the orders of eviction should not be passed against him (Anx. 12 ). In the impugned notice name of the temple and other relevant facts for eviction were not mentioned at all. Due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner was unable to remain present before the Estate Officer on 16. 4. 84. THErefore, without giving further opportunity to petitioner straightaway ex parte proceedings ordered against the petitioner and thereafter by an order dt. 23. 10. 1985 respondent No. 2 directed the eviction of the petitioner and also ordered recovery of rent from the petitioner @ Rs. 100/-per month from 25. 6. 1981 onwards (Anx. 13 ).
(2.) IN pursuance of the impugned order at Anx. 13 dt. 23. 10. 1985 notice dt. 4. 12. 1985 was issued against the petitioner ordering him to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice (Anx. 14 ). The impugned order at Anx. 14 was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3 District Judge, Bikaner on several grounds and along with the appeal the petitioner wanted to produce some important documents in support of his case but unfortunately the learned District Judge did not allow the production of those documents and by judgment and order dt. 7. 10. 1989 dismissed the appeal (Anx. 16 ). Hence, this petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge at Anx. 16 it clearly appears that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of defending his case before the respondent No. 2 as the exparte proceedings initiated against him. When he preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge it was the duty of the learned Judge to take those documents on record or he should have remanded the case to the respondent No. 2 for deciding the same after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner was served with a notice (Anx. 12) u/s. 4 (1) of the Act but unfortunately on the first date of hearing i. e. 16. 4. 84 the respondent No. 2 in absence of the petitioner proceeded ex parte against him. In my opinion it was in sheer haste the respondent No. 2 decided to proceed against the petitioner on the very first day of hearing of the notice. Ordinarily, at least one more opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to lead oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 at Anx. 13 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Once the order at Anx. 13 dt. 23. 10. 1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 is required to be quashed then the subsequent order at Anx. 14 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises has to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) AS stated earlier the learned District Judge either should have given at least one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 by accepting his appeal or he should have decided his appeal after taking the material documents on record which he fails to do. Hence, the impugned order at Anx. 16 is also required to be set aside. In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Anx. 13 dt. 23. 10. 1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned order at Anx. 14 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order is also set aside. Similarly for the reasons stated above the impugned order dt. 7. 10. 1989 (Anx. 16) passed by the learned District Judge is also hereby quashed and set aside. With these observations this petition is allowed. . ;