SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.) The present application under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been preferred against an order of affirmance, whereby the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act") affirmed a judgment of eviction against the present petitioner.
(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction, since the appointment of the person passing the order in the capacity of Estate Officer was not in accordance with Section 3 of the 1971 Act.
(3.) Learned senior counsel next argues that the Estate Officer, whose order was affirmed in appeal, had stopped the evidence midway by putting the cross- examination of the P.W.1 "on hold" vide order dated October 15, 2015 passed by the Estate Officer. It was observed by the Estate Officer that the matter had boiled down to the issue as to whether the present petitioner had attempted to tender rent for the period from August 1, 2008 onwards and whether the opposite party had refused to accept such rent which, according to the Estate Officer, was the only point of dispute remaining between the parties, as evident at that stage itself. The present petitioner was accordingly directed to produce evidence on such "pin-pointed issue" but was given further liberty to seek resumption of cross-examination of P.W. 1 after the present petitioner had adduced evidence on such "pin-pointed issue". It was observed by the Estate Officer that such prayer for resumption of cross-examination of P.W. 1 would then be weighed in context of justifiability and relevance and, if necessary, would be allowed. Liberty was given to the petitioner also to file written objection to the petition dated December 12, 2014 filed by the present opposite party, who was the applicant before the Estate Officer, after adducing its evidence on the said issue, at a later stage.;