Honble SHETHNA, J.–Against the petitioner, suit for ejectment was filed before the Civil Court under the Rent Control Act on two grounds namely; (i) reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs and (ii) sub-letting. First ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement was not found favour by the trial court, but on the ground of sub-letting namely that the petitioner No. 2 sub-let the premises to petitioner no.1, the suit was decreed against the petitioners. However, in appeal the decree passed by the trial court was set aside, against which second appeal no. 33/74 was filed before this Court which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on March 10,1981. (2). It was, thereafter, the present respondents No. 1 and 2 moved the Estate Officer, Udaipur-respondent No. 3 after the amendment brought into Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1950 on the ground that it is a wakf known as Dargah Masjid Sindhian and Kabristan in which petitioner no.2 was a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.21/-, but he sub-let premises to the petitioner no.1, who is doing business on it. It was urged that Wakf Board wanted to construct shops on the same plot and the wakf properties were exempted from the operation of premises of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Thus, Wakf property was declared as a public premises, therefore, the occupation of the present petitioner on the premises in question was unauthorised, therefore, they may be removed from the disputed premises. It was registered as a case no. 941/83 before the court of City Magistrate, Udaipur, who by his order dated 5.1.1985 (Annex.6) ordered eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question. Against the same order, the petitioners filed civil appeal no. 20/85 before the court of District Judge, Udaipur, which also came to be dismissed on 29.10.1985 (Annex.7). (3). These orders at Annex.6 and 7 are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners. (4). Against the same order, the petitioners filed civil appeal no. 20/85 before the court of District Judge, Udaipur, which also came to be dismissed on 29.10.1985 (Annex.7). (3). These orders at Annex.6 and 7 are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners. (4). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition is required to be allowed only on the short ground namely that once the suit against the petitioners has been dismissed right upto this court then merely because the amendment in the Act came into force later on, it would not entitle the respondents no.1 and 2 to move an application before the City Magistrate, Udaipur for initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1950. Learned Magistrate has not at all focus his attention on this. Even on merits, he has committed an error. Similarly, in appeal the learned District Judge committed an error by observing that no evidence was lead by the petitioners. The entire approach of the courts below was wholly wrong and unwarranted. (5). Under the circumstances, though this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no other alternative for this Court but to interfere with the impugned orders. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders at Annex.6 and 7 are hereby quashed and set aside. Stay granted earlier stands vacated. Stay petition is also disposed of.