Mandatory service of notice and necessary parties rule can defeat a writ challenge to eviction proceedings.

Service of notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and Rule 4 of the 1971 Rules is treated as mandatory and protective: where the statute requires registered post acknowledgment due or another prescribed mode, mere registered post dispatch and affixation without evidenced service do not satisfy the requirement, especially if the address is incomplete. In certiorari proceedings, the Estate Officer and appellate authority whose orders are challenged are necessary parties; failure to implead them renders the writ procedurally defective. The combined effect is that challenges to eviction proceedings may fail both on defective service and non-joinder.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 read with Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 was valid when the notice was affixed on the premises and also sent by registered post but not by registered post acknowledgment due. (ii) Whether the writ petition could succeed when the Estate Officer and the appellate authority, whose orders were under challenge, were not impleaded as parties.

Issue (i): Whether service of notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 read with Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 was valid when the notice was affixed on the premises and also sent by registered post but not by registered post acknowledgment due.

Analysis: The service provisions were treated as protective and mandatory. Section 4(3) contemplates affixation together with service in the prescribed manner, and Rule 4 specifically requires service by registered post acknowledgment due or other prescribed modes. A registered post dispatch without acknowledgment due did not satisfy the rule, because the statutory emphasis was on evidenced service. The notice also suffered from absence of a complete address, which prevented any presumption of service.

Conclusion: The notice was not duly served in accordance with the Act and the Rules, and the contention of valid service failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could succeed when the Estate Officer and the appellate authority, whose orders were under challenge, were not impleaded as parties.

Analysis: In certiorari proceedings, the authorities whose orders are sought to be quashed are necessary parties. Since the specific objection had already been taken and the omission remained uncured until the late stage of the proceedings, the request to implead them was declined.

Conclusion: The writ petition was also defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction proceedings failed both on the question of service of notice and on the procedural defect of non-joinder, so the writ petition could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and prescribed rules require service by registered post acknowledgment due, dispatch by registered post alone is insufficient unless the mode of service is proved in the manner mandated by the rule; in certiorari proceedings, the authorities whose orders are assailed are necessary parties.

---