JUDGMENT SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. The judgment dated 20th August, 2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Metro Railway, Kolkata in claim Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2014 is under challenge in this application. The respondents/petitioners filed a claim application being Case No. 1 of 1993 before the learned competent Authority for determination of damage compensation under Section 22 and 25 of Metro Railway (construction works) Act, 1978 which was dismissed by the Competent Authority vide Order No. 30 dated 12.10.1995. Respondents filed Civil Revisional Application being C.O. No. 3202 of 1995 which was dismissed on 30.4.2001 in view of availability of alternative remedy and also preferred a Civil Revisional Application being C.O. No. 1669 of 2002 against the said claim Appeal No. 1 of 2001 before the Hon’ble Court and while remanding the case to Appellate Authority directed to decide the case on the basis of the documents by order dated 20.3.2007. The respondents/claimants preferred a claim Appeal No. 1 of 2001 before the Appellate authority as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in Revisional application being C.O. No. 1669 of 2002. Metro Railway challenged the maintainability of the said Appeal No. 1 of 2001, which was dismissed vide Order No. 8 on 22.01.2008 affirming the order of Competent authority by the Appellate Authority. Mr. Bijoy Brata De learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the opposite parties/claimants had sold out the subject property to third party on 24.9.2004 during the pendency of the case without prior permission and/or intimation and/or leave of the Court. That a substitution claim Appeal No. 1 of 2001 filed on May, 2005 before the Competent Authority, Metro Railway and the said case by way of Appeal is at present pending before the Hon’ble Court being C.O. No. 1876 of 2013 and C.O. No. 1877 of 2013, General Manager, Metro Railway, Kolkata vs. SAF Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. The respondents/claimants preferred another revisional application before the Hon’ble Court being C. O. No. 1997 of 2008 challenging the said Order dated 08.5.2008 of Appellate Authority and Hon’ble Court had set aside the order of Appellate Authority passed on 08.5.2008 and directed to adjudicate the appeal to determine the claim under provision of Section 25 of the said Act on 11.02.2014. The Appellate Authority allowed the Misc. The Appellate Authority allowed the Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2014 on contest by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2014 setting aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 12.10.1995 and appellant/claimant at present respondents/claimants were granted an award of Rs.47,13,354/ upon deducting an amounting of Rs. 4,71,335/- as TDS. This is the impugned order which is under revision before this court. It is submitted that the respondents/claimants falsely claimed themselves as lawful owners of the premises No. 170A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta suppressing the fact that the said property had been sold to third party on 24.9.2004 by way a registered Deed of Conveyance transferring the right, title and interest of the respondent/claimants to the third party. Accordingly, it is urged that the said application being C.O. No. 1997 of 2008 is not maintainable due to incorrect and/or false affirmation and for that the respondents/claimants are liable to be punished for obtaining the judgment and order from the Hon’ble Court as well as from the Appellate Court by fraudulent practice. It is pointed out that the respondents/claimants gained a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lac) as consideration money for the sale of the said property under the Deed of Conveyance and urged that the Appellate Authority has not considered all the relevant documents, applications and orders and ignored the fact that the respondents/claimants had lost their right, title and interest over the said property and to continue with the claim case after 24.9.2004. The Counsel for the Metro Rail also submitted that Appellate Authority had not properly scrutinized the letter dated 07.7.1992 of Syndicate Bank Exhibit No. 7 and deposition of P.W.-2 Sub-Manager of Syndicate Bank who himself deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the matter and genuineness of the letter of acceptance of tenancy directly from Tee Jay Properties to respondents/claimants by adding party respondent of Syndicate Bank and Tee Jay Properties as affidavit is necessary to confirm the letter dated 07.7.2014, 20.10.1982, Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5 for its originality and thereby failed to consider the point that no legal valid, enforceable documents was submitted by the respondents/claimants to establish the alleged 20 years lease deed and the proposal and acceptance letter of Syndicate Bank and respondents/claimants for direct tenancy from Tee Jay Properties to the said respondents/claimants. It is further submitted that Appellate authority did not consider that within the purview of sections 22 and 25, no separate claim case can be filed for any commercial property for ascertaining the commercial loss for any damage due to construction work of Metro Railway and Appellate Authority did not consider that property is a commercial property. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the Metro Railway that they got no scope to repair the damage allegedly caused to the building as the building was already demolished. It is argued that by the order impugned the Appellate Authority allowed the respondents/claimants for double gain from the same property which is contradictory to Section 22 and 25 of Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and also did not consider the point that Syndicate Bank allegedly entered into direct tenancy with the respondents/claimants in February, 1992 when the building was in alarming situation i.e. Syndicate Bank agreed to be a tenant in a property which was a 74 years old dilapidated structure. Therefore, termination of the lease in respect of said property within seven months appears to be suspicious in nature depicting an unholy nexus with Syndicate Bank, Tee Jay Properties and respondents/claimants as the letter dated 21st February, 1992 and 17th October, 1984 are doubtful as those letters were signed by only one partner of Tee Jay Properties. Being aggrieved by the Judgment impugned, the petitioner preferred the instant revisional application inter alia on the grounds that the provisions of Section 22 and 25 of the Metro Railway (construction of works) Act, 1978, have been misconstrued inasmuch as the claim of the respondents/claimants has been considered on hypothetical and imaginary loss and damages in respect of their earnings on account of rent. It would be apt to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of Sections 22(3) and 25 of the said Act, relating to the compensation on account of damages to the building due to Metro Railway construction of works for better appreciation of the case. It would be apt to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of Sections 22(3) and 25 of the said Act, relating to the compensation on account of damages to the building due to Metro Railway construction of works for better appreciation of the case. 22(3) The competent authority or the [appellate authority], while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall take into consideration— (i) the loss or damage sustained by such person in his earnings; (ii) the diminution, if any, of the market value of the land or building immediately after the date of publication of such notification; (iii) where in pursuance of any direction any building has been demolished or any additions or alterations to such building have been made or any development has been desisted by such person, the damage sustained by him in consequence of such demolition or the making of such additions or alterations or the desisting from making such development and the expenses incurred by such person for such demolition or additions or alterations: Provided that the expenses incurred for such demolition or additions or alterations shall not be taken into consideration if such demolition or additions or alterations has or have been done by the metro railway administration under sub-section (2) of section 36; (iv) if any such person is compelled to change his residence or place of business the reasonable expenses, if any, that may have to be incurred by him incidental to such change. 25. Amount payable for damage, loss or injury.— (1) Where the metro railway administration exercises any power conferred on it by or under this Act and in consequence thereof any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in any land, building, street, road or passage, the metro railway administration shall be liable to pay to such person for such damage, loss or injury such amount as may be determined by the competent authority. (2) If the amount determined by the competent authority under subsection (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount payable shall, 1[on an appeal preferred by either of the parties, within sixty days from the date of the order of the competent authority, to the appellate authority, be determined by an order of the appellate authority]. (2) If the amount determined by the competent authority under subsection (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount payable shall, 1[on an appeal preferred by either of the parties, within sixty days from the date of the order of the competent authority, to the appellate authority, be determined by an order of the appellate authority]. (3) The competent authority or the 2[appellate authority] while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage, loss or injury sustained by any person interested in the land, building, street, road or passage by reason of— (i) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any; (ii) the temporary severance of the land, building, street, road or passage; (iii) any injury to any other property whether movable or immovable. 3[(4) The procedure and the manner of deposit and payment of the amount payable for acquiring any land, building, street, road or passage or any right of user in or any right in the nature of easement on any land, building, street, road or passage shall be followed in the case of the procedure and the manner of deposit and payment of the amount determined by the competent authority or the appellate authority under this section.] The Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the respondent/ claimants filed two separate cases in respect of the selfsame subject building for single notification of Metro Construction works and another for loss of future earning under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Amendment Act of 1987 and the Appellate Authority only relied on a document marked Ext.-7 that Syndicate Bank was in intention to enjoy the tenancy but considering the condition of the building they realized that even after repairing the said building may not fit for re-occupation. But neither the said Bank nor the respondents/claimants ever approached before the Metro Railway for any joint inspection for repair of the said building and that the Appellate Authority only calculated the loss on the rent amount on the basis of Exhibit No. 7 without considering the other liability of the owners such as liability of tax, repair of building, depreciation of building, maintenance charges, future bank policy, ineagerness of induction of new tenant, ineagerness of repairing of building. In this context, I agree with the contention of Mr. In this context, I agree with the contention of Mr. De that an Expert Assessor or a Valuer for assessment in respect of impugned claim of the respondents/claimants ought to have been engaged in order to ascertain the actual damage loss and injury caused to the property due to Metro Railway construction work. I am of the view that there is an objective standard of valuation for compensation claimed on account of any damage, loss or injury caused to any portion of the subject building as per the provision of Section 25 Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Amendment Act 1987 whereas in the present case the Appellate Authority has dealt with imaginary and hypothetical claim of future loss and earning of rent. Per contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das the counsel for the opposite parties on the contrary submitted that Lease for 20 years for a period from 1982 to 2002 which was stated in the letter being Exhibit No. 7, was relied upon by the Hon’ble Justice Arindam Sinha in the earlier occasion being admissible in evidence and based on the said amount, the Appellate Authority calculated the loss of rent for the unexpired period of 01.9.1992 to 30.6.2002 firstly on the basis of i) Rent from 01.9.1992 to 30.6.1997 @ Rs. 37,113/- i.e. 58 months =Rs. 21,52,554/-. ii) Rent from 01.7.1997 to 30.6.2002 @ Rs. 42,680/- i.e. 60 months = Rs. 25,60,800/- total being Rs. 47,13,354/- claimed by the respondents/claimants and accordingly, supported the decision for having calculated the loss on account of future rent. It would appear from the order impugned that order no. 30 dated 12.10.1995 of the Competent Authority in claim case No. 1/1993 was under challenge before the Appellate Authority of Metro Railway, Kolkata. Moot contention of the respondents/claimants is that they are the owners of the premises No. 170A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and that due to construction of work Metro Railway alarming situation cropped up in the building as a result Syndicate Bank being the tenant occupant of the first floor of the building vacated the premises on 1st September, 1992 terminating the agreement due to unsafe condition of the building and on that account the claimants prayed for damages to be calculated on the basis of the loss of rent to the tune of Rs. 47,13,558.92 paisa. 47,13,558.92 paisa. Taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties, it is understood that the respondents/claimants has already earned profit from the subject building by sale in the year 2004 at a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lac). Therefore, award of compensation by assessment of loss and damage on account of future rent for ten years i.e. from 01.9.1992 to 30.6.2002 in respect of one floor of the subject building appears to have been assessed in preposterous manner in my considered view and warrants interference in the impugned judgment in as much as Appellate Authority has erred in law and in fact on the following counts— Firstly, that original claim case is still pending. Secondly, the relationship between the claimants and the Bank has not been supported by any registered lease deed, tenancy agreement or rent receipts. Thirdly, the letter dated 07.7.1992 of Syndicate Bank is disputed as the signature of the Manager is without seal and stamp. Fourthly, the short date of surrender of Tee Jee Property i.e. February, 1992 to the owner and notice of Syndicate Bank for termination of tenancy to Mr. Bajaj is July, 1992, is suspicious in nature. Fifthly, the cracks and damages were found in the year 1989 when Tee Jay Properties was the tenant of the claim petition and Syndicate Bank became direct tenant in the year 1992. That is to say, admittedly the bank accepted direct tenancy in respect of a portion of the building in damaged condition. Sixthly, it was imperative for the Appellate Authority to consider that without leave of the Concerned Authority or without leave of the court and without leaving scope for survey of the building to assess the quantum of damage and injury to the building caused due to the metro construction work, the subject property was sold to third party during pendency of the claim case and the claimants could not maintain the claim case for double gain from the said property and in a situation like this the Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2014 is not maintainable by claimants claiming themselves as landlords after absolute sale of the subject property to third party in the year 2004. Appeal No. 1 of 2014 is not maintainable by claimants claiming themselves as landlords after absolute sale of the subject property to third party in the year 2004. This Court also finds that no scope was given to the Metro Railway Authority for the survey of the building and for the objective calculation of the damages caused to the subject building due to the Metro Railway construction work. The subject building is admittedly not in existence as on this day because a high rise building has been constructed by the buyer of the building. In the context of the above finding, it is now imperative for this Court to remit the case back to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh in the light of discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs. Ergo, the judgment is set aside and the revisional application under the scheme of Article 227 of Constitution of India is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.