Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971, authorizes the Estate Officer to entertain an application at the instance of a lawful occupier for assessment of arrears of rent and for giving direction for payment of such rent.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is at the instance of an occupier governed under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 ("act") and is directed against order dated August 17, 1988 passed by the Estate Officer in Misc. Case No. EO/24/1197/misc. 4, C. R. Avenue, Calcutta-700073, thereby holding that an application at the instance of an occupier for assessment of any arrear of rent and for giving direction for payment of such rent under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable.

( 2 ) ). There is no dispute that the petitioner was induced in the disputed property by the opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the occupation of the present petitioner is governed by the provision of the Act.

( 3 ) ). The case of the petitioner is that theopposite party duly accepted rent till March 1997 at the rate of Rs. 650/- a month but when the petitioner in the month of May, 1997 sent the rent for April, 1997 at the rate of Rs. 875/- per month in terms of the earlier agreement between the parties dated June 6, 1992, the opposite party refused to accept the same. Thereafter the petitioner contacted the concerned official of the opposite party for acceptance of rent but he did not accept such rent, as a result, the petitioner started sending rent to the opposite party by cheque every month but the opposite party refused the same with the intimation that it was not in a position to accept rent through cheques. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner came up with an application under Section 7 (1) of the Act before the Estate Officer for adjudicating the amount of arrears and for a direction for payment of such arrears to the petitioner.

( 4 ) ). The opposite party contested the said application by filing written objection thereby opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The objection of the opposite party was that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain any application for direction upon the owner to accept rent. The other allegations in the application were also disputed

( 5 ) THE Estate Officer by the order impugned has rejected the application on the sole ground that he was appointed only for passing eviction order after holding necessary enquiry and to perform other incidental act arising out of the eviction order in connection with the tenancy; but no direction can be passed for payment of rent either at the instance of the Estate Officer or of the occupier.

( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the occupier has come up in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) MR. Dasgupta, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this application has placed strong reliance upon Section 7 (1) of the Act and has contended that the language used in the said Section is wide enough authorising the Estate Officer to entertain an application for adjudication of arrears at the instance of a lawful occupier. Mr. Dasgupta further contends that the Act itself is a self contained Act and there is no scope of even going before a Civil Court for adjudication of the dispute as regards arrears of rent. Under such circumstances, Mr. Dasgupta contends, the Estate Officer refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law by not going into the merit of the application.

( 8 ) MR. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has on the other hand supported the order passed by the Estate Officer and has made twofold submissions in opposing this application.

( 9 ) THE first contention of Mr. Das is that an order under Section 7 of the Act is an appealable one under Section 9 and as such in view of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal, this Court should not entertain this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 10 ) THE other submission of Mr. Das is that an order under Section 7 of the Act can be passed only at the time of eviction of the occupier and before an