JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.

1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioners is directed against the order dated April 21, 2025 in W.P.A. 1135 of 2025. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging a notice issued under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The petitioners questioned the said notice as being defective inasmuch as the grounds on which section 4 was invoked, were conspicuously absent in the notice, which was challenged in the writ petition.

2. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order, was of the opinion that the challenge to the show-cause is premature and the petitioners, though have sought to make out a defence of title over the subject property, but such defence has not yet been taken in the eviction proceeding inasmuch as reply to the show-cause notice has not yet been filed. Therefore, the learned Single Bench observed that it is always open to the petitioners to set up a title over the subject property as a defence and if such defence is taken, the Estate Officer is obliged to address the same.

3. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) vs. Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 705, which, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Single Bench, was not fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the appellants to file a reply to the notice issued under section 4(2) of the Act, for which time was extended. Aggrieved by such order, the writ petitioners have filed the present appeal.

4. We have elaborately heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

5. Section 4 of the Act deals with issue of notice against order of eviction. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act specifies that if the estate officer has information that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner provided under the Act, a notice in writing within seven working days from the date of receipt of the information regarding the unauthorised occupation calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.

6. Sub-sections (1A) and (1B) will not have application to the facts of this case. Sub-section (2) states that notice shall (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. Under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Rules, 1971, Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 18 of the Act. Rule 3 would be relevant for the purpose of this discussion, which deals with form of notices or orders. It states that a notice or order under the Act shall be in one of the appropriate Forms appended to these rules.

7. Form A is the form of notice under sub-section (1) and clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the notice, which was impugned in the writ petition, has adopted Form-A, which has been prescribed in the Rules. However, the statutory form after first paragraph mentions the ‘Grounds’. This, pre-supposes that the authority, who is issuing the notice has to specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. This is a statutory mandate in terms of section 4(2)(a) of the Act. However, the estate officer, while issuing the notice has missed out on giving the ground on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. Therefore, it is a case, where the notice impugned in the writ petition is defective for such reason alone.

8. With regard to the other grounds, which have been canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellants, those are all touching upon the merits of the matter. We fully subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Bench that the appellants, though, sough