1993 (9) TMI 336 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Compliance with Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971.
3. Adequacy of notice sent by registered post without acknowledgment due.
4. Completeness of the address in the postal receipt.
5. Necessary parties in a writ of certiorari.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Service of Notice:
The primary issue was whether sending a notice by registered post, in addition to its affixation on the outer-door of the public premises, constitutes proper service under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The judgment clarified that the service of notice must comply with the statutory requirements, which include affixation and sending by registered post acknowledgment due.

2. Compliance with Rule 4:
Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971, specifies the manner of service of notices. The rule mandates that notices must be sent by registered post acknowledgment due to ensure that the recipient acknowledges receipt. The court emphasized that Rule 4 was introduced to protect occupants from being deprived of their right to defend themselves due to improper service of notice.

3. Adequacy of Notice Sent by Registered Post:
The petitioner argued that sending the notice by registered post, even without acknowledgment due, should suffice. However, the court held that the statutory requirement under Rule 4 is explicit and must be strictly followed. The absence of acknowledgment due means there is no written evidence of receipt by the occupant or an adult member of their family, failing to meet the statutory requirement.

4. Completeness of the Address in the Postal Receipt:
The court noted that the postal receipt for the notice did not contain the complete address of the occupant. The address only mentioned "Prop. Prince Cafe" without specifying the location. This incomplete address meant that no presumption of service could be raised, further invalidating the service of notice.

5. Necessary Parties in a Writ of Certiorari:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Udit Narain Singh vs. Board of Revenue, which established that in a writ of certiorari, both the parties in whose favor the order is issued and the Tribunal or authorities whose order is sought to be quashed are necessary parties. In this case, neither the Estate Officer nor the Additional District Judge was made a party, leading to a procedural defect. Although the petitioner requested to implead them during arguments, the court declined due to the delay and the earlier objection raised by the respondents.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the service of notice was not in compliance with the statutory requirements, the address in the postal receipt was incomplete, and necessary parties were not impleaded in the writ petition. The application for restoration of certain amenities by the respondent was dismissed as withdrawn. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.