The specific mode of service required by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Rules must be complied with, and the delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The petitioner i.e., Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DTTDC), vide the present petition seeks the setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 of the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in PPA No. 11/2020 whereby, an application filed by the respondent herein i.e. M/s Barefoot Holidays India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s Barefoot) arrayed as the appellant to PPA No. 11/2020 under Section 9(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 seeking condonation of nine (9) days delay in filing the said appeal against the order dated 19.11.2019 in Eviction Petition No. 8/2019 of the Estate Officer, DTTDC was allowed with it having been prayed by the petitioner that the said PPA No. 11/2020 filed by the respondent before the District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi,- be rejected and dismissed as being barred by limitation.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent.

3. Reply to the writ petition was submitted by the respondent with written submissions also having been submitted on behalf of either side with a catena of verdicts having been relied upon inter se. Oral submissions were also made on behalf of either side by their respective learned counsel.

4. Vide order dated 19.11.2019 in Eviction Petition No. 8/2019 filed by the DTTDC against the respondent thereto who is also arrayed as the respondent to the present petition i.e. M/s Barefoot filed under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and in terms of Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the respondent i.e. M/s Barefoot was directed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 27,85,189/- forthwith on account of an outstanding amount in respect of Annual Concession Fees, damages on account of unauthorized use and occupation of the premises, property tax, water & electricity charges, tax liability upto 31.05.2018 besides interest 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.06.2019 till realization to the petitioner and it was directed that in the event of refusal or failure on the part of the respondent M/s Barefoot Holidays India Pvt. Ltd. to pay the amount as detailed in Para (a) above within a period of 07 days or in the manner aforesaid, the amount would be recovered as an arrears of land revenue, in as much as it was held vide the said order that the Estate Officer, DTTDC was satisfied that the petitioner, DTTDC Ltd. had been able to establish that the respondent had failed to pay Rs. 27,85,189/- with respect to the public premises i.e. Food Plaza and Kiosks and open area at Guru Teg Bahadur Memorial, Delhi.

5. Vide this order dated 19.11.2019 which was assailed in PPA No. 11/2020 by M/s Barefoot i.e. the respondent herein, it was observed to the effect:-

“Order may be communicated by the official email ID and Speed Post.”

6. In terms of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, an appeal against an order of the Estate Officer, DTTDC made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or 5(B) or Section 5(C) or Section (7) (as is in the instant case), in as much as, the order dated 19.11.2019 which forms the subject matter of PPA No. 11/2020 was one under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, to an Appellate Officer who has to be the District Judge of the District in which the public premises are situated or such other judicial officers in that district of not less than 10 years standing as the District Judge being designated in that behalf,- has in terms of Section 9(2)(b) thereof to be filed within 12 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant and in terms of the proviso to Section 9(2) of the said enactment, the appellate officer may entertain the