JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellants' S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8817/2014. 2. About 50 years ago, respondent-Municipal Board, Dholpur rented a piece of land to one Deen Dayal. Thereafter Deen Dayal was permitted to construct a shop on that land by the Municipal Board. The appellants are sons of Deen Dayal. They, therefore, after the death of Deen Dayal, came into possession and occupation of the land and shop. They are admittedly continuously running the shop and are even paying rent to the Municipal Board.. 3. As the appellants were apprehending their dispossession by the Board, they filed a civil suit for injunction against it. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal the District Judge, Dholpur decreed the suit with direction against the Municipal Board not to dispossess the appellants except in accordance with law. The District Judge further directed that appellants cannot be dispossessed by administrative orders. The Municipal Board issued impugned notices dated 05.06.2012, 05.07.2013 and 14.08.2014, asking them to vacate the rented shop. The appellants rushed to Executing Court by filing an application. The Executing Court dismissed that application vide order dated 16.05.2013. The appellants then immediately filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8817/2014, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. It is to be noted that in the writ petition, the appellants also prayed for quashing of notices dated 05.06.2012, 05.07.2013 and 14.08.2014, issued by the Municipal Board, asking them to vacate the rented shop. 4. The learned Single Judge has held that Executing Court had correctly noticed the point that Municipal Board does not have the power under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (in short, 'the Act of 1964') to dispossess a person even by force and, therefore, it was justified in issuing eviction notice to the appellants. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the findings and the decree passed by the Appellate Court. Learned Single Judge has also erred in law in holding that since the Act of 1964 was not applicable to the Municipal Board, the appellants could be evicted merely by issuing notices. Learned Single Judge has also erred in law in holding that since the Act of 1964 was not applicable to the Municipal Board, the appellants could be evicted merely by issuing notices. In our considered view, the only course open to Municipal Board is to first terminate the lease and thereafter file a suit for eviction. This is also what the decree passed by the District Judge in favour of appellants says. 6. According to the learned counsel for the Municipal Board, since the writ petition was directed against the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by a Civil Court, the present intra-Court appeal is not maintainable. But we reject this submission. As already mentioned above, the appellants had not only challenged the validity of order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Executing Court, but had also prayed for quashing of notices dated 05.06.2012, 05.07.2013 and 14.08.2014, asking them to vacate the rented shop. And the notices ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge by issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. We accordingly set aside the judgment dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. We also set aside the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Executing Court as well as notices dated 05.06.2012, 05.07.2013 and 14.08.2014, issued by the Municipal Board. 8. The appeal is allowed.Appeal Allowed. *******