V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 24th January 1991. The dispute is in respect of two shops situated at Sanganer for which the proceedings under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 were taken.
(2.) ONE of the disputes relates with regard to the notice. The relevant provisions are contained under Section 4 of the Act which reads as under : "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 here-in-after 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 is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. A notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 31.5.1985 that his tenancy is determined w.e.f. 30.6.1985. The said notice was refused to be accepted, thereafter, an application was moved to the Estate Officer on 31.10.1985. The Rajasthan Wakf Board constituted a committee on 22.10.1984 for management and supervision of Wakf property. The notice was served on the respondents and they appeared before the Estate Officer on 9.10.1985. It was contended that the property in dispute is not a wakf property and there is no shop having No. 75-76. It was also stated that in the two shops they are carrying on the business since last 33 years and one of their sons Ashok Kumar is also having interest on whom the notice has not been served. The shop was rented in 1953 to Yasin Mohd. on payment of Rs. 13/- per month and at present Rs. 30/- is being paid which was collected by Shri Sultan Ahmed on account of Panchayat Maniharan Amer and after the death of Sultan Ahmed money order was sent received back.
(3.) ON the question as to whether the notice should have been issued to Ashok Kumar in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, the learned District Judge found that there was no necessity for issuing a separate notice to (sic) hear the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out as to what was his interest in the property and how he has been produced. Ashok Kumar has not appeared in this Court. Once the notice has been issued in the name of firm and is served on any of the partners, it is not necessary that an individual partner should be served separately. Object of notice u/s 4 of the Act of 1964 is that person affected must be made aware of the proceedings proposed to be taken against him. The property is occupied by the firm, service on any one partner is sufficient.;