ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner-trust”.] being aggrieved with the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.1-Estate Officer”.], whereby the application filed by the petitioner-trust was dismissed. The petitioner-trust has also challenged the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-District Judge, Rajsamand (Appellate Authority), [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.2-District Judge”.] , whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1964”.], was preferred on behalf of the respondent No.3-Mandir Mandal Board Nathdwara, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.3-board”.], claiming that the Shop Nos.8 and 16,[ For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the premises in question”.], situated at Bambai Wali Dharamshala (Badi Dharamshala), Near Manak Chowk, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand were rented to the petitioner-trust, however, since 1994, the petitioner-trust has neither paid rent despite notice nor handed over the possession of the said shops and, therefore, the order of eviction may kindly be passed against it.

3. In the said proceedings, the petitioner-trust filed its reply and matter was fixed for producing evidence on behalf of it.

4. At this stage on 13.02.2021, the petitioner-trust moved an application before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer claiming that the premises in question are not public premises and, therefore, proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 be terminated.

5. The application dated 13.02.2021 filed by the petitioner-trust was opposed by the respondent No.3-board while claiming that the question regarding ownership of the premises in question has already been deiced by the High Court, wherein it is clearly held that the premises is in the ownership of the respondent No.3-board. It is argued on behalf of the respondent No.3-board before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer that as per the agreement dated 18.11.1994 executed between the parties, the petitioner-trust is liable to pay the rent and it is for the petitioner-trust to prove that it is not the unauthorized occupant of the public premises.

6. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer after taking into consideration the submissions of the counsel for the parties has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-trust.

7. Against the above order dated 25.08.2021, the petitioner-trust preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 before the respondent No.2-District Judge, however, the respondent No.2-District Judge vide order dated 11.04.2022 has dismissed the said appeal while holding that the same is not maintainable as the same is against the interlocutory order and is not against the final order passed under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has submitted that the respondent No.2-District Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust while treating it as not maintainable. It is also submitted that every order passed by the Estate Officer while exercising powers under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964 is appealable.

9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has placed reliance on the decision dated 18.03.2016 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur in Smt. Khatoon Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.680/1997], [Reported in “2016(3) WLC (Raj.) 555”.]

10. Learned counsel for the petit