JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up for hearing together and the same are treated as on day’s list. 2. The appellant is a tenant under the respondent company. A notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was challenged by the appellant before the learned single judge by filing W.P. No. 28002 (W) of 2017. The writ petitioner/appellant contended before the learned single judge that the Estate Officer is an employee of the respondent company and had dealt with the matter, had issued various letters to the writ petitioner/appellant and has also issued the show cause notice under Section 4 of the said Act, hence, the said Estate Officer should not continue with the proceeding and some other Estate Officer should be entrusted with the matter as there is likelihood of bias. The learned single judge Relying on the decision in Crawford Bayley & Co. & Ors. –vs- Union of India, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 25 dismissed the writ application holding that just because the Estate Officer is an employee of the respondent company, the same per se does not give rise to any possibility of bias. 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us by way of the present appeal. 4. On the last occasion, we had granted leave to the appellant to add the Union of India as a party. It has been done. The Learned Additional Solicitor General of India represents the Union of India. 5. Without going into the controversy we feel that it will be in the interest of justice if the Union of India appoints any other person as an Estate Officer only for the purpose of the instant case. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. No litigant should feel that he has not been meted out impartial treatment or given fair hearing. 5. Accordingly, we direct the Union of India to appoint some other person as the Estate Officer in the place and stead of the present Estate Officer to decide the case initiated against the appellant. The present Estate Officer shall not proceed with the matter any further. The new Estate Officer shall be appointed within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. 6. The present Estate Officer shall not proceed with the matter any further. The new Estate Officer shall be appointed within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. 6. Admittedly, rent has not been paid by the appellant for the last 43 months. The rate at which rent had last been tendered was Rs. 1,42,656/-for June 2014 which however was returned by the respondent company. The arrear rent calculated at the said rate comes to Rs. 61,34,208/- . The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakhs) only with the respondent company within five weeks from date. 7. The respondent company shall invest the said sum in a Short Term Fixed Deposit earning the best possible rate of interest with a Nationalized Bank. The said fixed deposit shall be kept renewed until further orders. 8. Such deposit will abide by the result of the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer. 9. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent company submits that the appellant is not paying the electricity charges for the portion under the occupation of the appellant. The arrear electricity charges according to the respondent company come to Rs. 3,78,354/-. 10. This is disputed by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 11. The respondent company shall supply to the appellant the copies of the electricity bills for the relevant periods. The appellant shall reimburse the respondent company the amounts paid by the respondent company on the basis of such bills within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copies of the bills. Further, the appellant shall continue to pay the current electricity charges. 12. The respondent company shall be at liberty to disconnect the electric supply to the portion under the occupation of the appellant in case the appellant fails to pay the electricity charges. If any dispute arises between the parties as regards the quantum of electricity charges payable by the appellant, the same shall be decided by the Estate Officer. However, the appellant shall not withhold payment just because of such dispute. 13. We have not gone into the merits of the case. All issues raised before the Estate Officer shall be decided by him in accordance with law. 14. With the above observations, the appeal and the application are disposed of. 15. However, the appellant shall not withhold payment just because of such dispute. 13. We have not gone into the merits of the case. All issues raised before the Estate Officer shall be decided by him in accordance with law. 14. With the above observations, the appeal and the application are disposed of. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.