ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, is filed, questioning the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, returning CMASR No. 10612/2004 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter 'the Act'). Heard Sri B. Shiva Kumar, Counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. The facts in nutshell which are relevant and essential for the purpose of resolving the controversy in the present writ petition are, as under:- 3. The husband of the petitioner herein was an employee under the first respondent herein and he retired from service on medical grounds in the year 2000 and subsequently he passed away on 20.8.2004. The first respondent herein initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 1 herein passed an order vide NFC/PAR.II/ES/EVICT/764/03/673 dated 22.12.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) of the Act, ordering eviction of the petitioner herein from Quarter No. A-4/11, Type-in in the DAE Housing Colony. As against the said order of eviction, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A. 3/2004, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The learned Additional District Judge, by way of judgment dated 4.2.2004 dismissed the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/2004 and granted time to vacate the premises by 30.4.2004. Felt aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8416/2004 before this Court. This Court by virtue of an order dated 29.4.2004, dismissed the said writ petition, and while dismissing the writ petition, this Court granted time till the end of June 2004 for vacating the quarter. This Court also made it clear that so far as payment of damages is concerned, it is open for the petitioner to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 4. Subsequently, complaining recovery of arrears towards damages of Rs. 1,88,428/- from Dearness Allowance of the petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Court of the Chief Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The Court of the learned Chief Judge returned the said appeal by way of an order dated 23.12.2004, which read as under: "Perused the entire record. 1,88,428/- from Dearness Allowance of the petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Court of the Chief Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The Court of the learned Chief Judge returned the said appeal by way of an order dated 23.12.2004, which read as under: "Perused the entire record. As seen from the order under dispute which was already decided in CMA No. 1 of 2004 and there was a specific mention that no specific order is passed under Section 7. Then, the matter is carried by the applicant herein to the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP No. 8416 of 2004 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court making observation that the present appellant is at liberty to question the same in an appropriate forum. But after subsequently, except the order passed on December 22, 2003 which was already decided in CMA No. 1/04 no other specific order is filed by the appellant herein. Therefore, the appeal is filed against the order which was already confirmed by the Court. No separate order is filed alleged to have been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 7. Hence, it is returned. If any separate order is filed the same should be filed along with the representation. Return, time 7 days." 5. In the present writ petition, it is pleaded by the petitioner herein that the learned Judge erroneously returned the appeal and the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that the action of the first respondent in recovering the amounts without passing any orders is a clear' violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent herein. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that as on date there is no order passed under Section 7 of the Act, as such, the learned Chief Judge is justified in returning the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner herein. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act appeal is maintainable against the orders of the Estate Officer passed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act appeal is maintainable against the orders of the Estate Officer passed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge. In the instant case, as per the first respondent herein there is no final order passed under Section 7 of the Act. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Chief Judge returning the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. At the same time, unless the provisions of Section 7 of the Act are complied with, it would not be open for the first respondent authority to recover the amounts. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that unless the mandatory requirements of Section 7 and the relevant rules are complied with, there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner herein. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.