JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This writ petition has been brought for quashing the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer on July 17, 1972 under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also the appellate order passed on February 11, 1974 by Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, under Section 9 of the said Act.
(2) One of the grounds raised in challenging the said orders is that a notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was not a valid notice inasmuch as it did not describe the premises to which this notice related. Annexure ‘D’ is the copy of the said notice which shows that the property to which it pertained is Nazul land measuring 64 sq. yards Commercial and 133 sq. yards residential located at Bagichi Allaudin, Delhi. No details have been given as to whether the said land is part of any khasra number or the said land has any municipal number. Even the boundaries of the said land were not given in the said notice. The eviction order passed under Section 5, copy of which is annexure ‘F’, shows that the eviction order has been made in respect of Nazul land measuring 64 sq. yards Commercial plus 1333 sq. yards residential, part of khasra No. 21135, 21136, 21137, at Qadam Sharif Estate, Delhi. The petitioner in response to this notice served on him under Section 4 of the Act has filed objections before the Estate Officer in which he did take the plea that the notice served on him is vague, illegal and void. The short question which needs decision in the present petition is whether in the absence of particulars of the property given in notice issued under Section 4, the eviction order passed in pursuance to that notice is vitiated or not ? It is, indeed, not disputed that it was mandatory requirement of law that a notice under Section 4 must be served before taking any proceeding under Section 5 of the Act. Mere fact that the petitioner assumed that the notice under Section 4 pertained to the premises in his occupation would not validate the notice if notice per se is bad. In Amulya Chandra Sutradhar & Another v. Estate Officer, Air 1964 Tripura 9(1), a similar question arose for decision and it was held by the learned Judicial Com-missioner that when proceedings are to be taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, the public premises in respect of which action is going to be taken must be ascertained by the Estate Officer and the first notice under Section 4(1) must clearly mention in respect of what public premises the eviction proceedings are being taken. It was further observed that thus the description of property in the first notice must not be indefinite as it is necessary for the reason that if a person is to be evicted from any premises in his possession which is claimed to be public premises, he must be told clearly by the description in the notice as to what are those premises are and it is only after knowing what those premises are that the said person can show cause against such eviction.
(3) Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the premises in possession of the petitioner also bear municipal No. 10547/1, Gali No. 3, Bagichi Allaudin, Motia Khan, New Delhi, but in the notice under Section 4 except for giving the measurements of the land nothing has been mentioned as to what are the boundaries of the said land and whether the said land is part of any khasra number or whether the said land bears any municipal number. He has vehemently argued that notice is clearly not valid inasmuch as it does not show specifically as to what premises it pertains to. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect because the notice under Section 4 must contain the particulars of the premises so that the person on whom notice is served is made aware clearly as to for what premises he has to show cause. The subsequent correction made in the description of the premises in the ultimate order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the Act does not have the effect of curing the defect appearing in the notice. In Dr. Yash Paul Gupta v. Dr. S. S. Anand and others, , the notice under Section 4 did not contain the reasons as to how the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that the persons in occupation of public premises are unauthorised occupants and such reasons were sought to be specified in the final order. It was held by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir that as the notice under Section 4 did not contain the reasons, thus the notice under Section 4 is invalid and the effect of giving reasons in subsequent order does not cure the invalid notice served under Section 4 of the Act.
(4) It is true that in case notice only contains clerical mistakes with regard to the description of the premises which do not amount to misreading the person or whom the notice is serv-ed, then the notice could be deemed to be valid but where the notice does not at all clarify the premises to which it pertains such a notice could not be termed to be valid as is in the present case. In Abdul Rahman & Another v. Smt. Savitri Devi and Others, 1971 Rcj 884, the Allahabad High Court was considering the contents of notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said notice due to some clerical mistake the demised shop’s number was given as 7511 instead of 275/1 and it was held by the High Court that though, notice to quit, not strictly accurate or consistent in the statement embodied in it may still be good and effective in law and that the test of its sufficiency is, not what it would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding i,l purports to refer but what it would mean to tenant presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances and, further, that it is to be construed not with a desire to find faults which would render it defective but to be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat. However the notice was held to be valid inspite of the fact that there was some typographical mistake in giving the number of the demised premises. Again, this judgment is distinguishable on facts. Here in the present case no description at all has been given in the notice which could pin point the premises to which it pertains. Bare reading of the notice would not make it clear to what specific premises it relates.
(5) It is also well settled that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act can always be waived whereas it is mandatory requirement of law that a proper and valid notice under Section 4 of the Act must be served. Such a notice cannot be waived and any apparent illegality in a notice issued under Section 4 of the Act can be highlighted by the aggrieved party at any stage of the proceedings. It is also clear in law that a notice under Section 4 of the Act not only apprises the person named in the notice but it is meant to apprise all the occupants of the particular public premises that proceedings are being commenced for their eviction from this public premises. For this reason as well, it is absolutely necessary that notice under Section 4 must meet with the provisions of law. Hence, a notice under Section 4 must contain the description of the public premises clearly so that all concerned should know what particular premises this notice pertains to. Therefore, this notice cannot, be upheld. On this short ground alone the eviction order as well as the appellate order confirming the said eviction order are liable to be quashed. I need not refer to other pleas taken by the petitioner in challenging the said eviction orders.
(6) As a result, I allow the writ petition and quash the eviction order dated July 17, 1972 and the appellate order dated February 11, 1974, but make it clear that the respondent would not be debarred from proceeding against the petitioner after serving a valid notice under Section 4 of the Act. The Rule is made absolute but the parties are left to bear their own costs.