MISRA, J. - (1.) AN order had been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Estate Officer on 17. 4. 1989 under Section 4 & 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short ``the Act of 1964'') wherein the suit was filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from Shop No. 143 at Chowkri Sarhad, Jaipur, Rajasthan contending that the petitioner has not paid the entire amount for the shop in question as a result of which she was liable to be evicted. The Estate Officer after hearing both the sides recorded a finding that Shop No. 143 at Chowkri Sarhad, Jaipur, which is in occupation of the petitioner is not unauthorised in nature as there had been a compromise in regard to the amount which the petitioner was to pay for the shop. It was further recorded that the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement has already paid the entire amount for the shop in question and in support thereof all the receipts were produced before the Estate Officer. It was further categorically recorded that ***
(2.) THUS, the application of the respondent was rejected by order dated 17. 4. 1989. The respondents neither challenged this order in this Court nor elsewhere by filing any appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 and kept silent over the matter by refusing to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner although it was directed to do so in the order referred to hereinbefore. On the contrary they sent a demand notice to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 70,895/ -. The petitioner, therefore, was compelled to file this writ petition placing reliance on the order of the Estate Officer passed way back on 17. 4. 1989. Mr. R. P. Garg, the counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed this writ petition and contended that the petitioner was duty bound to pay this amount towards interest on the outstanding amount for the shop, which she was liable to pay in terms of the agreement and he argued with excessive zeal, in support of this plea completely missing the findings recorded in the order of the Estate Officer and also losing sight of the finding recorded in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the entire amount in terms of the agreement was already paid by the petitioner. It is curious why the respondents did not prefer any appeal if they thought that the order passed by the Estate Officer was erroneous in any manner nor they challenged it by way of a writ petition claiming interest and simply sat idle even after the order was passed in favour of the petitioner in a quasi judicial proceeding by the Estate Officer and instead of executing the order, raised a further demand ignoring the order dated 17. 4. 1989. Even if the order was passed by the quasi judicial authority, was erroneous in any manner, it could not have been ignored unless it was altered by the appellate authority in order to give them a reason to urge before this Court that the order is erroneous because the question of interest had not been considered by the Estate Officer while passing the order in favour of the petitioner on 17. 4. 1989. If that was so, the respondents ought to have challenged the said order by way of an appeal or a writ petition, which admittedly has not been done & so I am not prepared to accept any argument in this regard specially when this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner and not by the respondents for setting aside the demand notice. The order dated 17. 4. 1989 itself indicates that the petitioner was not treated as an unauthorised occupant since it was recorded that she has duly paid the entire instalments for the shop. The argument, therefore, advanced in support of the demand notice justifying that the said amount was payable towards interest is clearly devoid of substance. Consequently, the demand notice dated 5. 8. 1998 (Annexure-6) is quashed as illegal and unjustified which was issued by ignoring the order of the Estate Officer, who had already decided in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thus, has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court on account of issuance of un-called for demand notice directing her to pay the amount which in the event of default would have entailed the consequence of eviction. The writ petition thus stands allowed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. . ;