V. K. Singhal, J. - (1.) The orders of the District Judge dated 9-7-1990/16-9-1993 have been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner was served with a notice issued by Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma the then Rent Realisation Officer for terminating of his tenancy in respect of the property-part of house No. P-32 Station Road, Jaipur, owned by Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. A notice was issued on 19-2-1983 on the ground that the said house is occupied without any allotment and the Government does not wish to keep the petitioner as tenant of the said premises and has decided to terminate the tenancy. The petitioner was required to deliver the peaceful possession of the premises along with arrears of rent. In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted a reply that he has physical possession since last seven years and the amount of rent which is outstanding may be informed so that he may deposit the same. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the Estate Officer, P. W. D. on 29th August, 1983. In response to that the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent Realisation Officer that per has no authority to submit any plaint against the petitioner and that he has no jurisdiction to determine the tenancy. According to the petitioner the powers vest with the Estate Officer in accordance with the circular dated 3-2-1977. The Estate Officer vide its order dated 5-4-1985 held that the possession of the petitioner is illegal and directed to give the vacant possession with 30 days. Against the said order appeal was preferred to the District and Sessions Judge in which it was alleged that Mahesh Chand Sharma has submitted the petition on 11 -7-1983 before the Estate Officer and on that date he was working as Rent Realisation Officer. He had no jurisdiction to submit such a petition. In accordance with the circular issued on 5-10-1983, Mahesh Chand Sharma was authorised for the first time and, therefore, the action of submitting the petition on 11 -7-1983 is without jurisdiction. It was also submitted that in accordance with the order dated 25-6-1983, the entire power vest with the Special Secretary General Administration. The District Judge considered the office order of July 1982 which was issued by the Chief Engineer, P. W. D, and held that prior to 5-10-1983 the entire action was taken in accordance with the orders issued by the Chief Engineer. The Special Secretary, G. A. D. was conferred with the power by order dated 25-6-1983 and, therefore, the order of July 1982 is perfectly justified. The application submitted by Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma was considered to be proper and in accordance with law and the appeal was dismissed. Against this order a review petition was moved that in the order observation to the effect that other points are not pressed has inadvertently been written and constitute a mistake apparent on the face of record. The District Judge found that this was the only point argued and, therefore, no relief can be given under Order 48, Rule 1, C.P.C. by reviewing the order. The review application was dismissed on 16-9-1993.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Realisation Officer was not competent to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner. He was also not competent to initiate the proceedings on behalf of the State of Rajasthan in the Court of Estate Officer as under the Rajasthan Nazule Building (Disposal of Public Auction) Rules, 1971 the Property Officer alone is competent to issue the notice for termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the proceedings can also be initiated by him. Attention was drawn to the order dated 25-6-1983 of the Government of Rajasthan by which it was said that the property being of P. W. D. presently headed by the Property Officer that its Technical and Litigant staff will now be under the direct control of Special Secretary to the Government, G. A. D. The copy of the order dated 2-10-1983 by which Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma and the Rent Realisation Officer was authorised to issue the notice for termination of tenancy and to submit the applications in the Court of Estate Officer was also shown. It is stated that the Estate Officer has to give 15 day's time to the tenant. The order which was issued by the Chief Engineer on 29-7-1982 by which the Rent Realisation Officer has been conferred with the work regarding disposal of Nazule property including government shops located in Jaipur and the Property Officer was entrusted with the work in respect of the property outside Jaipur. In the absence of the Property Officer, the work was to be looked-after by the Rent Realisation Officer. A reference of office letter No. S. C. E. I. /82-24-6-1982 has also been given in this order, but the copy of such an order has not been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of this order it appears that the Rent Realisation Officer was conferred with the power even earlier by order dated 24-6-1982 and such a power was again conferred on 29-7-1982. The issue of notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 19-2-1983 or submitting the petition before the Estate Officer by the Rent Realisation Officer was subsequent to this order dated 29-7-1982. This order has also a reference to the earlier order dated 24-6-1982. Thus, it appears that the said powers were being exercised by the Rent Realisation Officer in the past. The order which has been issued on 2-10-1983 cannot be considered to be the first order by which the Rent Realisation Officer was conferred with the power to issue the notices determining the tenancy.
(3.) So far as the order dated 16-9-1993 is concerned, it has been stated by the learned District Judge that the arguments were raised only on one point, and therefore, the application under Order 48, Rule 1 read with Section 114, C. P. C. is not maintainable. This order does not require any interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction more so in view of the finding recorded in the order dated 9-7-1990. The contents of the order have to be presumed connect unless proved otherwise. The decision given on 16-9-93 does not require any interference.;