- (1.) The facts relevant and necessary to the present enquiry are, as per the petitioner, the original petitioner (Mohan Singh since deceased) entered into a lease agreement in respect of farm near village Binayakia commonly known as. 'sewage farm with the Municipal Council, Jodhpur on 2.8.75. The initial period of lease was for two years and was to expire on 1.8.77 with a term for renewal for further period of two years. The petitioner deposited the amount of lease money. On 1.8.77, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur that his period of licence has come to an end and, therefore, the petitioner should hand over the possession of the premises i.e. Municipal sewage farm to the respondent Municipal Council. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this order and filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur. In the civil court, the petitioner contended that the transaction in question was not licence but a lease and the Municipal Council was not authorised to ask for possession of the premises treating it to be a licence. The Municipal Council was not authorised to evict the petitioner from the premises in question treating it to be a licence. The petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. for injunction. The injunction was granted by the civil court holding that the petitioner could only be evicted the due process of law. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur, the Municipal Council, Jodhpur preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed. It has been held by the appellate Court that there is strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, his possession should be protected and dismissed the appeal filed by the Municipal Council.
(2.) In the meanwhile, when the proceedings were pending consideration before the civil Court, on 22.12.78 a notice was issued by the Estate Officer who happen to be Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur under Sections 4 & 7 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964' hereinafter) as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises as his possession after the period for which the licence was issued, is unauthorised and why the damages till that date of Rs. 1,48,502/ should not be recovered from him. On 20.8.79 Col. Mohan Singh filed reply and second reply was submitted on 30.3.92. On 15.10.93, an order for eviction was passed. It was directed to the petitioner to hand over the possession of sewage farm and if the possession is not delivered, the Municipal Council, Jodhpur can take appropriate steps for taking possession in accordance with law. As regards mesne profits, it was directed that until final orders in the suit pending consideration, the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed in the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court dated 12.10.77 as mesne profits. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 15.10.93. By order dated 8.9.94, Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur upheld the order passed by the Estate Officer and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) In paragraph 18-A of the petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that the Estate Officer was dealing with the case with complete bias and was not acting as an independent authority but he was acting as an Officer of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The action of the Estate Officer is thus stands vitiated on account of the malice in law and bias. One cannot be a Judge in his own cause is well settled, the facts will reveal that the Estate Officer was acting in a bias manner. On 7.6.82, the Estate Officer was appraised of the order passed by the High Court and that the rent for the year 1981-82 has been deposited. The Estate Officer marked the file to the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Council in the capacity of the Commissioner of the Municipal Council. The file of the Estate Officer was handed over to the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The file was dealt with by various officers of the Municipal Council. The noting was made as if they were dealing with the file of Municipal Council and finally it was ordered on 19.11.82 that notice may be issued to both the parties. Although the date was already fixed but since the time was taken in process of file in the office of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur it could not reach to the Court of Estate Officer on 19.12.82 itself so over writing was made and 29.11.82 was fixed. This shows that the Estate Officer was not acting independently. Before this, the file of the Estate Officer remained with the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jodhpur Shri Arvind Mayaram, which is clear from the order sheet dated 28.5.82. The order sheet reads that the file was called by the Administrator Shri Arvind Mayaram, which is handed over to me today by Shri B.D. Joshi, Revenue Officer to take the decision in the case, Colonel Mohan Singh be issued notice for the date 7.6.82. The order sheet was drawn by Shri V.D. Solanki, who was a Law Officer, which clearly indicates that the Estate Officer was acting under the directions of the Municipal Council. If the Administrator takes part in the proceedings and dealing with the file even by taking the record of the Estate Officer, then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Estate Officer is acting independently. A bare perusal of the originalo file of the Estate Officer shall reveal that the Estate Officer was acting as per directions of the opposite party of the petitioner.;