B.J. Shethna, J. - (1.) Small portion of Raj Ranchhorji Ka Mandir, Jodhpur premises was let out to one Shanker Lal Nai at the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- way back on 15.1.63. Shanker Lal died on 13.1.85 leaving behind him his brother Moot Shanker, his sons Sidharth and his widow Parvati and Sarswati w/o Mool Shanker, who were also staying along with him in the same premises. Impugned notice at Annex. 3 was served. The Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan, Jodhpur issued notice for eviction to only one person Shri Mool Shanker. The Estate Officer (Dy. Commissioner), Devesthan Department, Jodhpur by his impugned order dated 31.8.94 (Annex. 1) ordered eviction and also ordered to pay Rs. 8400/- for the period from 1.2.87 to 31.3.92 and Rs. 500/- p.m. from 1.4.92 till the premises is vacated as damages with 12% interest. The said order was challenged in appeal by Sidharth Parvati and Sarswati before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, which came to be allowed by order dated 3.4.95 (Annex. 2). The same is challenged by the present petitioners State of Rajasthan and the Inspector, Devesthan Department, Jodhpur by way of this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Kothari for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the learned Addl. District Judge committed an error in holding that the impugned notice issued against the present respondent No. 1 to 3 was defective, therefore, bad in law and illegal. He submitted that the notice was not issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act but it was issued under the Public Premises Act. Form-A is a performa of notice to be issued under the Public Premises Act. The present notice at Annex. 3 cannot be said to be a notice issued as per performa - Form-A of the Public Premises Act. Hence, without goint into any other contentions raised in this petition, this petition is required to be dismissed.
(3.) On other points also, many things would have been said but I have restrained myself from saying so. However, I must state that the rent of Rs. 10/- was raised to Rs. 140/- in 1999. Notice was issued only against Mool Shanker though along with Mool Shanker his wife Sarswati and Parvati wife of late Shanker Lal Nai, to whom the premises were let out and Sidharth s/o Shanker Lal were residing Under the circumstances, when the learned Judge found the notice defective then it cannot be said that the learned Judge committed any error in allowing the appeal. The other reasons assigned by the learned Judge may not be sustainable. However, if one reason is sufficient to sustain his order then this writ would not interfere with such orders in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but strictly speaking it is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited and this Court cannot lightly interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;