JUDGMENT - S.K. DESAI, J.:---This Special Civil application is preferred against the order of the learned Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, passed on 26th September, 1975 in Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 1975. A few facts may be stated. 2. It appears that on 20th/21st February, 1975 a notice was issued to the petitioner before me under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By this notice he was called upon to show cause on or before 25th February, 1975 against the proposed order which was viz., why an order of eviction should not be made in respect of the flat mentioned in the Schedule. Instead of showing cause the petitioner filed an application dated 25th February, 1975 for staying further proceedings before the Estate Officer, Air India, in view of the pending suit in Bombay City Civil Court. Mr. Morje submitted that this was an application under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and/or section 151 of the said Code. Ultimately on 27th May, 1975 an intimation was given to the petitioner by the Estate Officer that the hearing had been fixed on 8th June, 1975 when the petitioner was requested to appear in person or through a duly authorised representative; he was also given an opportunity by the said intimation that he was entitled to and may lead evidence, documentary or otherwise, on that day. The petitioner was informed that if he failed to appear on the specified date, the matter might be taken up ex parte. 3. Mr. Morje submitted that inasmuch as the application of the petitioner dated 25th February, 1975 is mentioned in the said intimation and since his request for stay has not been acceded to, the intimation given to the petitioner that the date of hearing fixed was 8th June, 1975 must be deemed to be an order against which an appeal lies to the Principal Judge in view of the provisions contained in section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 4. It is true that the Estate Officer, Air India, has not clearly passed a specific order on the petitioners application. By necessary implication, however, the application is rejected. Section 9 of the Act seems to envisage an appeal lying from every order; but that phrase must be given its natural meaning in accordance with commonsense. 4. It is true that the Estate Officer, Air India, has not clearly passed a specific order on the petitioners application. By necessary implication, however, the application is rejected. Section 9 of the Act seems to envisage an appeal lying from every order; but that phrase must be given its natural meaning in accordance with commonsense. Suppose on date fixed by the Estate Officer an application for a long adjournment is made, which is not granted at all or a short adjournment is given rather that the lengthy adjournment sought for. Can this be considered to be an order which is appealable before the learned Principal Judge? In my opinion, the answer must be in the plaint negative. Further I find the application made by the petitioner on 25th February, 1975 so untenable that the Estate Officer would have been right in rejecting it summarily and fixing a date of hearing. 5. I find however, that the Estate Officer has treated the said application as a reply to the show cause notice. That does not appear to be correct. That was an independent application and if that was rejected or was considered untenable and further hearing fixed, the petitioner should have been informed that by a specific date he would be required to send his reply and the date of hearing could have been fixed seven of fifteen days the date given for putting in such reply. 6. Mr. Morje has submitted that the proceedings adopted by the Estate Officer were clearly contrary to the statute and he wanted to cite certain authority in support of this submission. I am not concerned in this Special Civil Application with the proceedings before the Estate Officer. The proceedings have not concluded. The petitioner has to file his reply and the hearing has to take place. At the hearing the petitioner will be entitled to bring this authority and his submission to the notice of the Estate Officer who will be required to deal with the submissions in the ultimate order. The proceedings have not concluded. The petitioner has to file his reply and the hearing has to take place. At the hearing the petitioner will be entitled to bring this authority and his submission to the notice of the Estate Officer who will be required to deal with the submissions in the ultimate order. Bearing in mind the fact that the Estate Officer may not be legally qualified, perhaps the petitioner would be well advised to include all these fine legal points in his reply to the show-cause notice so that the contention remain on record and these is no further complaint that the Estate Officer was unable to appreciate the legal submissions or pass a proper order based thereon. 7. In the result, the Rule will stand discharged. Normally costs would have followed the event, but inasmuch as there is an appeal from order preferred by the respondents, which in my opinion, is also liable to dismissed. I propose to make the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding accordingly. 8. It is made clear that the Estate Officer will permit the petitioner to file a reply, if so advised, before proceeding with the hearing of the show-cause notice. -----