BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) ARNED counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that no counter affidavit would be necessary and that she would argue on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner and the original record which she has brought to Court. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties the matter was taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) IN this petition the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the order of the learned Additional Judge. Delhi delivered on 7. 12. 2002 in an appeal No. EPA/350/2000 preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said act" ).

( 3 ) THE premises in question is House No. 42, arakpur, Bagh Mochi, Delhi. It is the petitioner s case that the ancestors of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 (who happens to be the petitioner s brother) were in possession and ownership of the property since 1938-39. The petitioner contends that they were in possession on account of some lease. I need not enter into this controversy in this petition.

( 4 ) IT was urged on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 that several notices under Section 4 (1) of the said Act and call letters were served upon the petitioner. This was disputed by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that no such notices/call letters were served upon the petitioner. In essence, it is the question of service of these notices/call letters which constitutes the meat of the matter.

( 5 ) THESE notices were alleged to have been served upon the petitioner during the period 1991-1993. On 18. 3. 1993 the Estate Officer directed exparte proceedings on account of non-appearance of the petitioner and other members of his family despite such alleged service of notices. By an ex-parte order dated 28. 12. 1995 the Estate Officer IV, DDA, Vikas sadan, I. N. A. New Delhi in case No. EV/abm/ 62, after holding the petitioner and his family members to be unauthorised occupants of the premises in question in particular premises comprised in Khasra No. 224, ordered the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Shri kirpa Ram and all other persons concerned who may be in occupation of the land in question to vacate the same within fifteen days of the date of the order. This order was passed in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (1) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by this ex parte order dated 28. 12. 1995 the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 cpc before the Estate Officer for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 28. 12. 1995. In the said application it was stated that the petitioner came to know of the proceedings for the first time when a copy of the said order dated 28. 12. 1995 was delivered on 13. 3. 1996 to the petitioner s mother who is an old and illiterate lady. In the said application the petitioner and the other applicants stated that they were surprised to go through the contents of the order especially as regards the statement that they had allegedly been served on various dates and that in spite of service they did not turn up. The petitioner categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the said application that the petitioner and other applicants never received any notice/call letter from the Estate Officer for any of the dates mentioned in the copy of the order dated 28. 12. 1995. In paragraph 9 of the application it was stated that the non-appearance of the applicants was not intentional or deliberate and would cause grave injustice if they were not given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, they prayed that the ex parte order dated 28. 12. 1995 be set aside.

( 6 ) THE said application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28. 12. 1995 was taken up for hearing by the Estate Officer. By an order dated 2. 4. 1996 the said Estate Officer, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document