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 b