JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner had been in occupation of the property in dispute as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-, under the respondent No. 3. The said respondent filed a petition under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (the Act) stating that since the petitioner had not paid rent for the period from 22.10.1984 to 22-6-1985 and had also started causing damage to the property in dispute her tenancy in respect of the property in dispute had been terminated but that she had failed to vacate the property in dispute and she continued to be in its illegal and unauthorised occupation. It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be evicted from the property in dispute and should also be directed to pay the amount due to the respondent No. 3. On receipt of the notice from the learned Estate Officer, the petitioner filed the written statement stating that she had paid the rent for the period ending 31.12.1984 and denied that any damage was caused to the property in disput. She opposed the prayer for eviction. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Estate Officer the petitioner absented on many occasions and Ex-parte proceedings had to be taken against her and, ultimately, vide order dated 12.10.1987 (Annx-5) the learned Estate Officer held that the property in dispute is a Wakf property and the tenancy of the petitioner had been validly terminated and her occupation on the property in dispute after termination of her tenancy was unauthorised and further that she is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute under the provisions of the Act and also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 320/- as arrears of the rent for the period ending September, 1985 besides paying the amount at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month till the date of handing over the possession of the property in dispute by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 5.3.1990 (Annx.-6).Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. It has been contended by Shri M.M. Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the property in dispute is not a Wakf property and, as such, the learned Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction against the petitioner. As noted above, the learned Estate Officer has recorded a finding that the property in dispute is a Wakf property. This finding of fact was not challenged before the learned District judge at the time to arguments and no affidavit has been filed stating that any such argument was addressed before the learned District Judge but was not dealt with by him. It is of course correct that according to the amended writ petition a bround has been taken by the petitioner contending that the property in dispute is not a wakf property. As noted above, the said finding of fact was recorded by the learned Estate Officer on the basis of the material before him and the said finding was not challenged before the learned District Judge, who heard the appeal and dismissed it vide the impugned judgment (Annx.-6). The petitioner thus cannot be allowed to challenge the said finding of fact in this writ petition filed against the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge. 4. During the course of arguments before the learned District Judge the only point raised was that no sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner before the order of eviction was passed against her by the learned Estate Officer. As has been noted in the order dated 6-9-1990 passed by I.S. Israni, J. on the stay application opportunity more than sufficient was given to the petitioner to prove her case but she did not avail of the opportunity and it appears that it was done with a view to delay the disposal of the case. 5. This writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed with costs. *******