A judicial officer's cumulative standing qualifies them to act as an appellate officer under the Public Premises Act, irrespective of holding the title of District Judge for 10 years.

1. Interference made by the learned single Judge on alleged misinterpretation of S.9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ''the Act'') as to the capacity / credential / eligibility of a Judicial Officer to act as ''Appellate Officer'' to deal with the appeals under S.9 of the Act, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. As per the verdict passed by the learned single Judge, it has been held that that the appeal has to be considered and decided by the ''District Judge of the District'' and if he assigns the function to any other Judicial Officer in the District, the latter should be such officer having a minimum standing of 10 years as District Judge. It was accordingly, that the impugned order was set aside, it having been passed by the Additional District Judge with a standing of only 5 years as District Judge and the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration, as specified.

3. We heard Shri. Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Shri. Anand Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as well as Shri. V. G. Tamaskar, the learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, at length.

4. The point raised in the appeal is mainly with regard to the correct interpretation of S.9 of the Act. But there is a contention for the Respondents that the appeal itself is not maintainable, the writ petition having been filed and dealt with by the learned single Judge under Art.227 of the Constitution of India . There is another contention for the 3rd Respondent, that the ''Estate Officer'' who passed the original order, being an officer of the Appellant / Steel Authority of India Limited (for short ''the SAIL"), which is not a Department of the Government, is not a ''Gazetted Officer" to have assumed the power and jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings under the Act.

5. Before going into the legal questions raised, a brief description as to the sequence of events will be appropriate to understand the dispute involved. Way back on 10.06.1981, a lease deed was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ''the IOCL'') in respect of the land in question for a period of 33 years, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The said lease which was effective from 10.06.1981 expired on 20.03.2013. According to the Appellant, the Petitioner failed to exercise the option to continue the lease by giving any notice in writing six months prior to expiry of the lease as stipulated. The Appellant, however, gave an opportunity on 03.04.2013 to renew the lease even after expiry and demanded Land Premium of Rs. 1.35 Crores (25% of the applicable land premium i.e. the current market rate of the land) Ground Rent and the Enhanced Lease Rent in accordance with the Company's rules. The Respondent - IOCL requested to reconsider the Premium as well as such other charges. Even the enhanced lease rent, according to them, was to be of a maximum extent of 50% more of the existing lease rent. This was not acceded to by the Appellant, who replied that the Respondent - IOCL was an unauthorized occupant and asked to deposit the amount due, so as to enable them to continue. After a few correspondences in between, the Appellant sent a notice on 04/06.06.2014 that the lease had expired on 20.03.2013 and in terms of sub-clause (9) of Clause 3 of the lease deed, it stood terminated; thus requiring to vacate the land. This made the 3rd Respondent, who was operating a Petrol Pump in the premises (at the instance of the Respondent - IOCL) to move this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 1098 of 2014 wherein an interim order of status quo was granted. During pendency of the matter before this Court, the Appellant moved the ''Estate Officer'' appointed in terms of S.9 of the Act, contending that the Respondents were continuing as unauthorized occupants and to get the property vaca