KOCHHAR, J. - (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. I have heard Shri R. M. Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri R. P. Garg, the learned counsel for the State and have also perused the record of the case. The first contention raised by Shri Lodha is that the notice dated 15-1-1981 (Annex. 3) terminating the tenancy of the petitioners was not served on the petitioner No. l and, as such, her tenancy cannot be said to have been terminated and she cannot be said to be in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute. From the impugned order of the learned District Judge I find that no such ground was taken by the petitioner No. 1, who was the sole appellant in the above said appeal. Even otherwise, the record shows that the notice was addressed to both the petitioners and was received by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of both the petitioners on 16-1-1981 as can be seen from the attested copies of the receipts proved on record of the learned Estate Officer as Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 respectively. It is not disputed that petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and both of them have been residing together in the property in dispute and petitioner No. 2 has been attending the proceedings on behalf of petitioner No. 1 also and had appeared before the Estate Officer on receipt of the notice under section 4 (1) of the Act and had also got produced the Vakalatnama in favour of Shri S. N. Sharma, Advocate executed by both the petitioners. The petitioner No. 2 being the family member of petitioner No. 1 it cannot be said that the receipt of notice meant for petitioner No. l, by the petitioner No. 2 would not amount to service on the petitioner No. 1 as Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act specifically states that the notice has to be served by giving it to the tenant or any member of his family. This argument is, therefore, without any substance. It has next been contended by Shri Lodha that notice dated 26- 2-1985 (Annx. 5) under section 4 (1) of the Act directing the petitioners to appear before the Estate Officer on 18-3-1985 was received on 15-3-1985 and since the period between the date of service of the notice and the date of the appearance mentioned in the notice was less than 10 days, the notice itself was of no consequence. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act reads as under: - 4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.- (1) If the Estate Officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in 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 (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as it specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3). . . . (4). . . . " A bare perusal of the above said provision makes it clear that it is not the date of service of the notice which is material but the date of issue of the notice is relevant for calculating the number of days given to the petitioners for appearance and showing cause. The facts narrated above, would show that the petitioners were granted much more than 10 days period for filing reply to the notice and to show cause against the proposed order and, inspite of their non-appearance on 15-4-1985 when ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them, on the appearance being made by their learned counsel on 26-4-1985 the case was adjourned to 18-5-1985 for filing reply to the show cause notice. This contention is also, therefore, without of any basis.
(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. The next submission made by Shri Lodha is that persons whose names are mentioned in para 17 of the writ petition were in possession of the properties mentioned therein and that their tenancies had been terminated and eviction orders were passed against them also, but their cases were regularised and they were sold the properties under their occupation out the property in dispute was not sold to the petitioners who were prepared to purchase the same. The case as set up in reply to para in question by the State is that the petitioners had never applied for the property being sold to them and were not even otherwise entitled to purchase the same, being defaulter in not paying the rent since long before their tenancy had been terminated. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners never applied for the property being sold to them. There was, thus, no question of the property being sold to the petitioners, who are, admittedly, defaulters in payment of the rent. Even otherwise, this contention cannot be examined in these proceedings in which the order of eviction confirmed by the learned District Judge has been challenged and in which their is no detailed material before this Court. The last contention raised by Shri Lodha is that their was no material before the Estate Officer to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute, and, as such, the notice issued by him under section 4 (1) of the Act itself is invalid. As noted above, in the petition submitted on behalf of the State before the Estate Officer it had been specifically mentioned that the tenancy of the petitioners had been terminated vide notice dated 15-1-1981 which had been received by them on 16-1-1981 and since they continued to be in possession thereof even after the termination of their tenancy they were unauthorised occupants thereof. Although, it is true that the copies of the receipts showing that the notice had been served on the petitioners had not been attached with the petition before the order under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the Estate Officer, that is of no consequence as the contents of the application prima facie was sufficient to form the opinion that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute and the reason for their being in unauthorised occupation of the property in dispute has been specifically mentioned by the Estate Officer in the notice issued by him under section 4 (1) of the Act. I, therefore, find no substance in this submission also. ;