- (1.) The petitioner, Hafiz Mohammad, is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by the Addl. District & Session Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupant) Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short).
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, the respondent No.1, had filed an application under Section 4 and 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer (Wakf), the respondent No.2, wherein it had claimed that the petitioner had taken certain shops on rent on 1.7.1995 at the rental amount of Rs. 75 per month. However, from 1.5.1998 to March, 1999, he failed to pay the said rental amount. Therefore, on 10.4.1999, a notice was issued to him; the tenancy was revoked on 1.5.1999. Therefore, the petitioner needs to be evicted and mesne profit needs to be paid by him. On 13.11.2003, the Estate Officer issued a notice to the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, the said notice was never served upon him. But, according to the respondents, the said notice was pasted at a conspicuous place of the shop in dispute. Therefore, the Estate Officer concluded that the notice had been duly served upon him. Since the petitioner did not appear on 1.3.2004, the Estate Officer (Wakf) commenced an ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. By order dated 21.5.2004, the Estate Officer (Wakf) directed that the petitioner be evicted from the property. According to the petitioner, till 7.2.2012, he did not know about the order dated 21.5.2004. He came to know about the same when the police came for evict him from the shop in dispute. Therefore, he filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the learned Judge. However, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by order dated 1.10.2013 inter alia on the ground that the appeal is hit by limitation and sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay of almost eight years. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. R.K. Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, in the notice dated 13.11.2003, next date was not revealed; secondly, notice was never served upon him; thirdly, the procedure under Order 5 Rule 19 has not been followed; fourthly, since the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte order only on 7.2.2012, i.e. after lapse of almost eight years, the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Yet, the learned Judge has not condoned the delay. Hence, the learned Judge has erred. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.;