- (1.) THIS writ application under Art. 226 of of the Constitution of India has been presented by the Association of the Punjab National Bank Employees, Rajasthan, Ajmer, through its General Secretary Shri Satya Prakash Chopra. It is directed against an order of the Collector, Ajmer dated 19th March, 1964 and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 71th July, 1964.
(2.) NO written reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner's case is, that Thakur Bakhtawar Singh had taken on rent certain portions of Soni Dharamshala situated on the Imperial Road, Ajmer from one Seth Nemichand Jain Digamber Dharamshala Trust. One of the rooms, i. e. No. 8 in the said Dharamshala was taken on rent by the petitioner as a sub-tenant from Thakur Bakhtawarsingh in the year 1959. Respondent No. 2, Collector, Ajmer, served a notice dated 6th December, 1960 under Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance No. 11 of 1949 on Thakur Bakhtawarsingh calling upon him to vacate the premises taken by him on rent from the said Trust since the premises were required for providing accommodation for Government Tikamchand Jain Higher Secondary School, Ajmer. Thakur Bakhtawarsingh in his reply to the said notice made it clear that he was in occupation of only a small triangular portion of the building on the first floor and the rest of the premises rented out to him had been sub-let. The Collector, Ajmer, rejected his objection and passed a final order on 7th April, 1961 Thakur Bakhtawar Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Ajmer, but it was dismissed in default on 11th April, 1961. He also filed a writ application before this Court, but it was dismissed on 22nd March, 1963. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the notice given to Thakur Bakhtawarsingh. He came to know of it only when the Super intendent of Police at the request of the Collector proceeded to dispossess the petitioner from the room occupied by him. When he came to know of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector on 28th January, 1964 saying that he was a sub-tenant in room No. 8 since August, 1959 and that he had obtained it on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/ -. It was alleged by him that no notice was given to him under the Ordinance and, therefore, he could not be compelled to vacate the premises, unless legal proceedings were taken against him. His application did not find favour with the Collector and he passed an order against him on 19th March, 1964. Aggrieved by that order, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority under Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition & Eviction) Ordinance, 1949. That appeal was also dismissed on 17th July, 1964. The petitioner's contention is that the Appellate Authority has taken the view that the notice having already been given to the tenant another notice need not have been given to the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this view is patently wrong and that since the petitioner was in occupation of Room No. 8 since 1959, that is, long before the first notice was given to Thakur Bakhtawarsingh, the proceedings taken against Thakur Bakhtawarsingh could not bind the petitioner. We have given due consideration to the said argument. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance No. 11 of 1949, on whose interpretation hinges the decision of this application, runs as follows: "sub-sec. (3) - Where the competent authority decides that it is necessary to requisition the premises for any public purpose, he shall call upon the landlord and the tenant or the person in possession by notice in writing to show cause within seven days why the premises should not be requisitioned. " On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the moment the competent authority decides (that the requisitioning of particular premises is necessary for a public purpose, he must give a notice in writing to show cause within seven days why the premises should not be requisitioned. This notice must be served upon the landlord to whom the premises belongs. If it is found that the premises is let out to a tenant, then the notice should also be given to the tenant, because the tenant would be directly affected. Similarly, if it is found that the premises are in possession of some body who is not a tenant, then the notice will also be given to him, because he would also be directly affected. In the present case, it is not denied by the non-petitioners that the petitioner was in occupation of the property since August, 1959, that is long before the first notice was served upon Thakur Bakhtawar Singh. It may be pointed out that sec. 3 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance lays down that whenever it appears to the competent authority that any premises is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, it shall be lawful for him or for any other person, who may be generally or specially authorised in this behalf, to enter upon and inspect the premises after giving due notice. It further provides that this inspection may be made for the purpose of determining whether an order under this section should be made in relation to such premises and if so, in what manner. The inspection of the premises may also be made with a view to secure compliance with any order made under the Ordinance. Now, it would appear that it would be difficult to secure compliance of an order made under the Ordinance, if the person, who is in actual possession of the property, puts in any kind of resistance. It is in order to obviate such difficulty that this power was given to such authority under sec. 3 (1) of the Ordinance. It may be further pointed out that the term 'tenant' as defined by the Ordinance, also includes every person, who is, for the time being, deriving title under a tenant and also every person remaining in possession of the premises leased to him after the termination of the lease. Reading sec. 3 (3) in this light, it would be clear that the person in possession of the premises should also be given notice if he is sought to be evicted therefrom. Since the petitioner was not given any such notice, he could not be thrown out forcibly in violation of law. If the petitioner is required to vacate the premises, the competent authority should proceed against him according to law that is after giving him a proper notice. In these circumstances, the impugned orders of the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19-3-1963 and 17-7-1964 respectively cannot be maintained. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. . ;