JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner u/Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) passed by the Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Jaipur by which the application of respondent No. 2 (Inspector, Devasthan Department, Bikaner) was allowed and eviction of the petitioner under section 5(1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1964') was ordered and further the petitioner was ordered to pay rent from April, 1983 to March, 1987 be quashed and set aside and further the appellate Order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bikaner by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as being barred by time be quashed and set aside and the Addl. Dist. Judge be further directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under - (i) That there is a temple known as 'Raj Ratan Behariji Temple, Bikaner'. There are number of cellars in the ground-floor of the temple which are let out to various persons. One of such cellars (i.e. Kothri No. 22) was let out to the petitioner long back at a rent of Rs.8/- per month. The petitioner is, thus, a tenant of the said cellar and is in possession of the same. (ii) That the further case of the petitioner was that he was paying rent regularly and the last payment of rent was made by the petitioner through receipt dated 29.10.1985 (Annex.1) by which rent upto 30.9.1985 was paid. Thereafter respondent No. 2 (Inspector, Devasthan Department, Bikaner) filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) for arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises and that application was decided ex-parte by respondent No. 1 (Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur) through order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) in the manner as stated above. (iii) That aggrieved from the order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dist. Judge, Bikaner which was transferred to the Additional District Judge. Bikaner and the learned Additional District Judge. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur) through order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) in the manner as stated above. (iii) That aggrieved from the order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dist. Judge, Bikaner which was transferred to the Additional District Judge. Bikaner and the learned Additional District Judge. through judgment dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) came to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time and. therefore, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as being barred by time without going on merits of the case. (iv) That aggrieved from the judgment dated 12.7.1991 (Annx.6), this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer as stated above. 3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal shall lie from the order of the Estate Officer under section 9 within 15 days from the date of publication of order under section 5 of the Act of 1964 passed by the Estate Officer and the appeal against the order under section 7 of the Act of 1964 shall lie within 15 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant and further the appellate Officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and, therefore, since in the present case no publication of the order dated 14.3.1989 (Annx.3) passed by the Estate Officer was made, the appeal should have been treated within limitation and, the judgment dated 12 7.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Bikaner is bad in law and should be set aside. 4. No reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 12.7.1991 (Annx.6) and submits that the order passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Bikaner is perfectly in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference by this Court u/Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India and this writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Heard. 7. Judge, Bikaner is perfectly in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference by this Court u/Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India and this writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Heard. 7. There is no dispute on the point that the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner had not decided the appeal of the petitioner on the merits, but the same was dismissed mainly on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Estate Officer passed the order dated 14.3.1989 (Annex.3) and the appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 30.12.1989. There is also no dispute on the point that the order dated 14.3 1989 (Annex.3) was passed by the Estate Officer, ex-parte against the petitioner. 8. In the file there is order dated 27.5.1989 (Annex.5) passed under section 5(1) of the Act of 1964 by the Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Udaipur and on the 'pack of the order, it is mentioned that the notice was not taken and therefore, it was pasted, but nowhere in that order dated 27.5.1989 (Annex.5), it was mentioned in specific term that the petitioner refused to take notice. Further there is no material- in this case to prove the fact whether the order under section 5(1) of the Act of 1964 was published or not. In these circumstances, the so findings of the learned Addl. District Judge as contained in the judgment dated 12.7 1991 (Annex.6) that the appeal was barred by time cannot be accepted. 9. Apart from this a lenient view should have been taken by the learned Additional District Judge in entertaining the appeal as the appellate Officer has power to entertain the appeal after expiry of period if limitation. The words "sufficient cause" appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice between the parties. From this point of view also, the learned Additional District Judge should not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner merely on the ground of limitation. In these circumstances, the appellate order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the case should be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner who passed the appellate order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6). 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional Dist. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Bikaner is liable to be set aside and the matter 15 deserves to be remanded to the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Bikaner for deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits.Accordingly this writ petition is allowed in the manner that the impugned order dated 12.7.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the Additional District, Judge, Bikaner is quashed and set aside and the appeal is treated within limitation and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner with a direction to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Bikaner on 6.2.2003.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******