J.S.VERMA, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioners, Sitaram & Mohanlal, are aggrieved by an order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority (respondent No. 2) made under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Act'), dated 12.9.1975 (Annexure) and the appellate order dated 21.12.1997 (Annexure 1) passed by the District Judge. Jaipur district, Jaipur (respondent No. 5) under Section 9 of the Act dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Competent authority.
(2.) ONLY argument advanced in respect of this petition is that the order of eviction was made without any notice to the petitioners who were the owners of the properties and were undoubtedly the persons most vitally affected and concerned with the same. Only material facts for deciding the above point are now stated. The property in question is a shop in Amer on the outskirt of City of Jaipur abutting the National Highway. The property was purchased by a registered sale-deed dated 6.12.1971 (Annexure C) by the petitioners from the previous owner, Kalyan BUx through his Attorney, previous owner, Kalyan Bux through his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai. The petitioners claimed that subsequent to the purchase by them, they have made construction therein with the sanction of the Municipal Board, Amer as is evident from the document for the purpose.
(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, a notice in writing is required to be given to 'all persons concerned", to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made; and therefore such a notice should have been given to the petitioners who were the most concerned persons even since the purchase of the property in question on 6.12.1971 much prior to the making of the eviction order by the competent Authority. Admittedly, no such notice was given to these petitioners and the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was given only to the aforesaid, Hanuman Sahai, Attorney of Kalyan Bux prior to the purchase of property by the petitioners. The aforesaid Kalyan Bux or his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai, took no action in reply to the notice and did not even care to inform the competent Authority of the sale of property to the petitioners on 6.12.1971. The eviction proceedings, therefore, continued before the Competent Authority resulting in an order of eviction being made thereafter. The question is, whether the eviction order is vitiated on account of the absence of the notice to the petitioners, in these circumstances (?);