JUDGMENT
J.L. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Annexure P. 1) by which an application filed by the Municipal Committee, Gobindgarh (respondent No. 2) under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for his eviction from the shop was allowed His appeal before the Com- missioner, Patiala Division, Patiala also having been dismissed vide orders dated January 12, 1988 (Annexure P. 2) the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
2. Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the Municipal Committee has been allowed without service of any notice on the petitioner. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to contend that it was incumbent on the Collector to have served a notice in accordance with the provisions of law before proceeding to accept the application filed by the Municipal Committee. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that notice was duly served on Raj Kumar, who is a partner of the petitioner and in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the requirement of service of notice should be deemed to have been complied with.
3. Section 4 of the Act provides as under 😮
“Section 4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction : –
(1) If the Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situate within his jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, the Collector shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided, a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall –
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made ; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof.
(3) The Collector shall cause the notice to be affixed on the outer-door or some other conspicuous part, of the public premises, or of the estate in which the public premises are situate, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.
(4) Where the Collector knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of public premises then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.”
4. A perusal of the above mentioned provision shows that the notice is required to be served on “all persons” who are or may be in occupation of the public premises. In view of this specific provision, service of notice on respondent No. 3 alone was not sufficient. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 3: was a partner, who ‘-habitually” acted “in the business of the firm” as required under Section 24 of the Partnership Act. The specific averment of the petitioner that the provisions of law viz., Section 4 were not complied with has not been denied by filing a written statement.
5. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside The case is remanded to the Collector Patiala for deciding the matter afresh after hearing all the parties. The Collector shall also issue notice to respondent No. 3, who had not put in appearance in this Court. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.