( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the Joint District Judge Rajkot in an appeal fled under Sec. 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) MR. Shah learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the peti- tioner vehemently submitted as under: (1) Notice under Sec. 4 of the Act is value because it is not specially stated that the petitioner was in possession of a parti-cular room of the specified premises. (2) Eviction order is passed only against the petitioner and not against the original allottee. Prabhakar Badheka and the petitioner is 8 tenant of the original allottee. Prabhakar Badheka. The order passed against him is collusive. (3) In December 1988 the premises ceased to be a public premises. As per the scheme of hire purchase the premises were allowed in the year 118 and all the instalments were required to be paid on or before December 1388 Hence after December 1988 the premises cease to be a public premises and therefore the order is without Jurisdiction. (4) That the Joint District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the Appeal under Sec. 9 of the Act as he was not a designated Judge as provided in the said Section.

( 3 ) IT is admitted fact that one Prabhakar Badheka was alloted the premises in dispute by the Gujarat Housing Board. It seems that he had inducted the petitioner in the premises. On 26-2-1979 the Gujarat Housing Board recovered the possession of the said flat (premises in dispute) on the ground of non-payment of instalments. On the basis of the order passed by the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Act the Gujarat Housing Board has taken possession from the allottee. Prabhakar Badheka and put the said flat in lock and key on 26-2-1979. It is the say of the Gujarat Housing Board that on 27 the petitioner broke open the lock and key of the Gujarat Housing Board and entered into the flat. As against this it is the any of the petitioner that as no order was passed against him he approached the higher officers and the higher offices of the Gujarat Housing Board permitted him to occupy the said premises. Alongwith the affidavit in reply the Gujarat Housing Board has produced on record the order passed below Ex. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 1979 wherein the trial Court has held as under; thus the plaintiff has falled to prove that after the recovery by defendant No. 1 his possession was restored by the officer concerned and therefore there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the observation of the XI GLR 971 is not applicable to the fact of the present ease The plaintiff will not cause any irrepairable loss as he was not in the possession of the premises at the time of the suit and no greater hardship will cause to the plaintiff. No. 1 decided that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff sad decide issue No. 1 in the negative and pass the following order.

( 4 ) THE respondent has also produced on record the order passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No. 360 of 1980 wherein it has been stated that the Gujarat Housing Board will not dispossess the petitioner except by process of law Thereafter proceedings under Sec. 4 of the Act were initiated against the present petitioner.

( 5 ) NOTICE under Sec. 4 of the Act was served upon the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the competent authority passed an order dated 30-1983 to evict the petitioner from the disputed premises Against that order the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge under Sec. 9 of the Act.

( 6 ) THE appeal came up for hearing before the Joint District Judge. Before the Joint District Judges the learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised all the correction stated above except the last contention