The learned Standing Counsel has, however, not disputed the fact that no formal notice was issued by respondent No.2 or the executive authority of respondent No.3 directing her to show cause why she shall not be evicted for the alleged non-payment of arrears. Though the petitioner has filed several receipts in support of her plea that she has paid the arrears upto date, as the learned Standing Counsel has disputed the authenticity of these receipts, this Court refrains from rendering any finding on the genuineness or otherwise of these receipts. As respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure of issuing a notice to the petitioner and giving her an opportunity of proving that she is not in arrears of the lease amount, she cannot be evicted, without following such procedure. On this short ground alone, the Memo impugned in W.P. No.20293 of 2015 to the extent it contains the direction to respondent No.3 to recover possession of the subject property from the petitioner, is set aside. Consequently, the auction notice dt.27.6.2015 impugned in W.P. No.21813 of 2015 along with subsequent steps taken in pursuance of such auction notice, are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property. Liberty is however, left to respondent No.2 to issue show cause notice to the petitioner proposing eviction and after holding a detailed enquiry on the allegation that she is in arrears of lease amounts, he shall pass an appropriate order.
