Smt. Kasturi Devi and others vs The Commissioner, Jullunder Division, Jullundur and others

Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, dated the 9th June, 1966, passed u/s 9 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act No. 31 of 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), upholding that of the Collector, Fazilka, dated the 4th June, 1965.

The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted 5 bighas of land comprised in khasra No. 4828/2024 on the 25th May, 1960 in an auction held by the Municipal Committee, Abohar (respondent No 3) on lease hold basis at a yearly lease of Rs. 500 and that out of this land possession of actually four bighas of land only was delivered to him. It is further asserted that it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would not be disturbed for a period of ten years. The allegation further is that in contravention of this agreement respondent No. 3 auctioned the leasehold rights of this land on the 9th June, 1963, in favour of a third party and thereafter the Municipal Committee filed an application under the Act for the eviction of the petitioner and also for recovery of damages for unauthorised occupation.

On this application notice was issued to the petitioner and, though the petitioner contested the application, an order of eviction was passed against him and the appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur. Hence the present petition to challenge both these orders.

The orders of the authorities under the Act have been challenged on two grounds, namely, that the notice issued to the petitioner was not in Form A is prescribed under the Rules made under the Act and that the grounds on which the order of eviction was based were not specified in the notice. So far as the second ground is concerned, there is not material on the record to hold that the notice did not contain the grounds on which the eviction was proposed as the notice served on the petitioner has not been placed on the record. In the absence of the notice it is not possible to conclude that there was any merit in the contention that the grounds were not specified in the notice.

It is not disputed that the notice served on the petitioner was not in the prescribed form, but this, in my opinion, is not sufficient to vitiate the order of eviction. Section 4 of the Act provides that a notice is to be issued by the Collector in the manner provided. This manner can be provided either in the Act or the Rules. So far as the mode of service of notice is concerned, no defect at all has been pointed out. Failure of the Collector to serve notice in the prescribed form would not imply that no proper notice was served or that it was nor served in the manner prescribed by the Rules. It is accepted that the petitioner did appear in response to the notice and contested his liability to eviction. In the absence of proof that there was no proper service of the notice or that the notice did not contain the material necessary under the law, it cannot be held that the notice was bad in law merely because the form prescribed under the Rules was not used. This argument is therefore, also without plausibility.

For the reasons indicated above, I find no merit in the petition, and dismiss the same but leave the parties to bear their own costs.