JUDGMENT 1. :- These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4190/89 filed by one Gopi Kishan against the proceedings for eviction taken against him under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. 2. Admittedly, Gopi Kishan is in occupation of the disputed premises. According to the State of Rajasthan a notice under section 4(1) of the Act was served upon him calling upon him to show as to why he should not be treated as an unauthorized occupant of the premises and why an order for eviction should not be passed against him. After this notice was issued, the authority empowered to give notice was changed from Assistant Devasthan Commissioner to Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan. The Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan continued the proceedings and sent a notice for appearance of Gopi Kishan before him on 8.3.83. On that day both the sides were absent before the Dy. Commissioner. He proceeded exparte and passed an order of eviction of Gopi Kishan from the premises. 3. According to the State of Rajasthan further steps were taken for serving notice under Section 5 and 7 of the Act also. Against the decision of the Dy. Commissioner, an appeal was filed before the District Judge who rejected it. Thereupon Gopi Kishan filed S.B. C.W. Petition No. 4190/89. The learned Single Judge deciding the case held that notice under section 4(1) of the Act was duly served upon Gopi Kishan and further proceedings before the Dy. Commissioner were also taken in accordance with law. He, therefore, upheld the order of eviction of Gopi Kishan from the premises. The learned Single Judge, however, held that notice under Section 7 for determining the amount of damages was not served on Gopi Kishan and, he directed that the notice be now served and the matter relating to section 7 of the Act be decided afresh. Gopi Kishan has filed D.B. Special Appeal No. 1002/98 against the order and the State of Rajasthan has filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1131/98, against that part of the order which holds that notice under section 7 was not served and remands the case for that purpose. 4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for Gopi Kishan has pressed four points before us. 4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for Gopi Kishan has pressed four points before us. Firstly, according to him, the property vested in the Devasthan Department after the issue of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act by the Estate Officer who belonged to the Devasthan Department, i.e. the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner. Secondly it is contended that after the authority empowered to take action under Section 4(1) was changed and instead of Assistant Devasthan Commissioner, the Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan was appointed, the authority to take action under Section 4, the Dy. Commissioner was bound by law to issue a fresh notice under section 4(1) of the Act and could not have changed the proceedings on the earlier notice issued by the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner. Thirdly, it was contended that even assuming that the Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan could continue the earlier proceedings, he should have notified to Gopi Kishan as to what he was supposed to do on 8.8.83 when he was called before the Dy. Commissioner for the first time after the Dy. Commissioner was authorised to take action under section 4(1) of the Act. 6. According to the learned counsel, a notice dated 20.7.83, Annex. 1 to the petition only requires Gopi Kishan to attend on 8.8.83 at 10.00 A.M. and file reply. It does not state as to reply to which notice had to be filed. Fourthly, the learned counsel submits that there was no material on record on the basis of which an order under section 4(1) of the Act could be passed. According to the learned counsel, at least a statement on oath of some one supporting the case of the Department was necessary. 7. The learned counsel for the State refutes all these contentions and supports the order passed by the authorities. 8. As regards the first point raised by the learned counsel for Gopi Kishan, we find that the claim is based on a Notification issued by the Government recognising certain properties as Devasthan Properties. The learned Single Judge has found that a rent deed had been executed by Gopi Kishan admitting him to be a tenant in the premises. The point has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in details and he has found that Gopi Kishan was the tenant of the State in the premises. The learned Single Judge has found that a rent deed had been executed by Gopi Kishan admitting him to be a tenant in the premises. The point has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in details and he has found that Gopi Kishan was the tenant of the State in the premises. If, after having executed a rent deed in favour of the State, some other notification recognising certain properties to be Devasthan properties is issued by the State Government, Gopi Kishan cannot take advantage of the same contending that the Devasthan Department has no right to proceed against him. Obviously, the contention has no force that notice under section 4(1) of the Act was issued after the property had ceased to be Devasthan property. As regards the second part that the Dy. Commissioner should have started fresh proceedings after issuing fresh notice under section 4(1) of the Act after he was empowered to take action under section 4 of the Act instead of the earlier delegate of the Board Assistant Devasthan Commissioner, Suffice it to say that change of authorities would not wash out the earlier proceedings taken by an authorised person. When the notice under section 4(1) was issued, the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner was empowered to do so and when later on the Dy. Commissioner was authorised to take action under section 4(1), he could continue the proceedings because the proceedings were based on a valid notice issued by an authorised person at the time of issuing the notice. There is, therefore, no force in this contention also. 9. As regards the third contention that notice dated 20.7.83 calling upon Gopi Kishan to attend the Dy. Commissioner's Office on 8.8.83 did not specify the purpose of issuing the notice, a bare perusal of the notice would show that he was called upon to file reply to the earlier notice which clearly meant a notice issued to him under section 4(1) of the Act by the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner. It is further contended that on 8.8.83 when both the parties were absent, the Department's case should have been dismissed in default and the Dy. Commissioner could not have proceeded exparte against Gopi Kishan in the proceedings. The argument is based on a misapprehension that the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act are by-parte proceedings between two parties before a neutral Judge. Commissioner could not have proceeded exparte against Gopi Kishan in the proceedings. The argument is based on a misapprehension that the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act are by-parte proceedings between two parties before a neutral Judge. In the very nature of things, in administrative matters, the person who issues the notice himself is one party and the person to whom notice is issued is the other. In such a situation when the Dy. Commissioner asked Gopi Kishan to appear before him and file reply and Gopi Kishan neither appeared nor filed reply, an ex parte order could have been made against him and there was no question of the Dy. Commissioner dismissing the case in default. There is no force in this contention also. 10. As regards the contention that there was no material on record to support the order, it is contended by the learned counsel that even termination of tenancy had not been proved in the case as no witnesses were examined and there is no statement on oath as to when and how and by what document the tenancy was terminated. This contention is again based on misapprehension. The proceedings initiated on a notice under section 4(1) of the Act clearly are proceedings to afford an opportunity of hearing to the occupant of public premises as to why an order of his eviction from there should not be made. A notice is issued after the Officer issuing it satisfied himself as to the existence of a ground to believe that the occupation is an unauthorized occupation of any public premise. It is for the notice to show that the act does not apply to the premises or that he was not in unauthorized occupation and no order of eviction could be made against him. If no such steps are taken in defence and no reply is filed to the show cause notice, the officer is right to assume that the notice had no cause to show. It is not necessary that an Officer issuing notice under section 4(1) of the Act should take evidence and then decide the point on which the order can be passed. We find no force in this contention also. 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion we find no force in the appeal filed by Gopi Kishan. 12. It is not necessary that an Officer issuing notice under section 4(1) of the Act should take evidence and then decide the point on which the order can be passed. We find no force in this contention also. 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion we find no force in the appeal filed by Gopi Kishan. 12. As regards the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, we find that the finding of the learned Single Judge that no notice under Section 7 has been issued is in assailable. After all the impugned order directs a fresh notice to be issued under Section 7 and directs the Estate Officer to himself determine the damages. No fault can be found with such an order. The appeal of the State also deserves to be dismissed.In the result, we dismiss both the appeals. We, however, direct the Estate Officer to act expeditiously in the matter and dispose of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act within a period of six months from today.No orders as to costs.Appeals of Both Parties Dismissed. *******