JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.03.1999 passed by the Estate Officer, Dy. Commissioner, Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioner is ordered to be evicted and was further held liable for payment of Rs. 15,91,177/- as rent, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharatpur which was partly allowed on 10.12.2003 and recovery of rent from 01.01.1998 at the new rate was set aside. However, the petitioner was held to be unauthorised occupant. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that Jagdish Prasad, father of the 1 petitioner was the original tenant of Shop No. 39 owned by the Devasthan Department for which the occupant was ready and willing to pay rent but the same was not taken. Ultimately, a notice was issued u/s. 4(1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (in short the Act) but the same was not received by the petitioner. On coming of the proceedings, when petitioner appeared and filed reply, the reply was not taken on record by the Estate Officer and no further opportunity was allowed to him to defend himself. Ultimately, vide order dated 27.03.1999 the petitioner was held to be as unauthorized occupant 1 and, therefore, liable for eviction and to make payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 15,927/-, against which the petitioner filed an appeal and his appeal against the rent part was set aside whereas eviction part was upheld. 3. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the notice issued u/s. 1 4(1) of the Act of 1964 was not served upon him and when he tendered the amount and filed reply the same was not taken on record. Thus, he has deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and make his submission. The order of Estate Officer is an ex-parte order without there being any justification. In the said order, there is no mention of the fact that the notice was not served upon the petitioner or his father. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the lower appellate court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and, therefore, both the judgments are liable to be set aside. The counsel further submits that the petitioner is paying rent regularly. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the lower appellate court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and, therefore, both the judgments are liable to be set aside. The counsel further submits that the petitioner is paying rent regularly. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner himself has not availed of the opportunity by putting his appearance on 26.05.99 and earlier also he remained absent, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. 5. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. 6. In my view, there is no justification for holding the ex parte proceedings without giving a finding that the notice issued u/s. 4(1) of the Act of 1964 has been served upon the petitioner. Further, when he himself appeared on 26.03.1999 then he ought to have been given an opportunity to take proper steps for setting aside the ex parte order. The lower appellate court has also committed an error in not considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, both the orders dated 27.03.1999 and 10.12.2003 are quashed. So far as treating the petitioner as unauthorized occupant, the matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to file reply and adduce evidence. *******