ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner-trust”.] being aggrieved with the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.1-Estate Officer”.], whereby the application filed by the petitioner-trust was dismissed. The petitioner-trust has also challenged the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-District Judge, Rajsamand (Appellate Authority), [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.2-District Judge”.] , whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1964”.], was preferred on behalf of the respondent No.3-Mandir Mandal Board Nathdwara, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.3-board”.], claiming that the Shop Nos.8 and 16,[ For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the premises in question”.], situated at Bambai Wali Dharamshala (Badi Dharamshala), Near Manak Chowk, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand were rented to the petitioner-trust, however, since 1994, the petitioner-trust has neither paid rent despite notice nor handed over the possession of the said shops and, therefore, the order of eviction may kindly be passed against it. 3. In the said proceedings, the petitioner-trust filed its reply and matter was fixed for producing evidence on behalf of it. 4. At this stage on 13.02.2021, the petitioner-trust moved an application before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer claiming that the premises in question are not public premises and, therefore, proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 be terminated. 5. The application dated 13.02.2021 filed by the petitioner-trust was opposed by the respondent No.3-board while claiming that the question regarding ownership of the premises in question has already been deiced by the High Court, wherein it is clearly held that the premises is in the ownership of the respondent No.3-board. It is argued on behalf of the respondent No.3-board before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer that as per the agreement dated 18.11.1994 executed between the parties, the petitioner-trust is liable to pay the rent and it is for the petitioner-trust to prove that it is not the unauthorized occupant of the public premises. 6. It is argued on behalf of the respondent No.3-board before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer that as per the agreement dated 18.11.1994 executed between the parties, the petitioner-trust is liable to pay the rent and it is for the petitioner-trust to prove that it is not the unauthorized occupant of the public premises. 6. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer after taking into consideration the submissions of the counsel for the parties has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-trust. 7. Against the above order dated 25.08.2021, the petitioner-trust preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 before the respondent No.2-District Judge, however, the respondent No.2-District Judge vide order dated 11.04.2022 has dismissed the said appeal while holding that the same is not maintainable as the same is against the interlocutory order and is not against the final order passed under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has submitted that the respondent No.2-District Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust while treating it as not maintainable. It is also submitted that every order passed by the Estate Officer while exercising powers under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964 is appealable. 9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has placed reliance on the decision dated 18.03.2016 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur in Smt. Khatoon Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.680/1997], [Reported in “2016(3) WLC (Raj.) 555”.] 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has submitted that even the respondent No.1-Estate Officer has also erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-trust vide its order dated 25.08.2021. It is argued that once the petitioner-trust raised the objection to the effect that the premises in question, for which the application was filed on behalf of a party, is not public premises then the respondent No.1-Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. 11. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has placed reliance on the decision dated 01.12.1986 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur in Raja Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 11. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has placed reliance on the decision dated 01.12.1986 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur in Raja Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.186/1981], [Reported in “1986 RLR 966”.] and the decision dated 15.03.2019 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.5574/2009], [Reported in “AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1692”.] . 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer and the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-District Judge may kindly be set aside. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-trust and perused the material available on record. 14. The respondent No.2-District Judge vide order dated 11.04.2022 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust while holding that the respondent No.1-Estate Officer vide order dated 25.08.2021 has simply rejected the application filed by the petitioner-trust with a prayer for terminating the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. It is also held by the respondent No.2-District Judge that since no final order under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 has been passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-trust under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 is not maintainable. 15. Section 9 of the Act of 1964 reads as under :- “9. Appeal.-(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or Section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other Judicial Officer in that district of not less than ten years standing, as the District Judge may designate in this behalf. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1), shall be preferred,- (a) in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 5, within 15 days from the date of the Publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and (b) in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 7, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant: Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time. (3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible. (5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer” 16. From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the appeal is maintainable before the District Judge of the district against every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964, however, the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer cannot be termed as an order passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 because as per Section 5 of the Act of 1964, the Estate Officer can make an order of eviction for vacating the public premises while recording reasons therein with a direction to the persons, who may be occupants of any public premises. 17. Here in this case, the respondent No.1-Estate Officer has simply dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-trust praying for termination of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer has neither passed eviction order nor dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 by the respondent No.3-board. 18. 17. Here in this case, the respondent No.1-Estate Officer has simply dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-trust praying for termination of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer has neither passed eviction order nor dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 by the respondent No.3-board. 18. I am of the view that any interlocutory order passed by the Estate Officer in the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 is not appealable under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 and only those orders are appealable whereby the proceedings under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act of 1964 are finally decided. 19. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Khatoon (supra) is of no help to the petitioner-trust as in the said case, the objection was raised on behalf of one of the parties that the appeal, against the order of rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 by the State, is not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 and dealing with the said arguments the Division Bench of this Court opined that any final order passed by the Estate Officer, either ordering of vacation of public premises or rejecting the application, is appealable under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 as in that section it has nowhere been mentioned that only the appeal is maintainable against the eviction order. 20. In view of the above, the facts of the case of Smt. Khatoon (supra) are altogether different from the facts of the present case. 21. So far as the arguments of the petitioner-trust is to the effect that once the objection has been raised on behalf of the party to the effect that the premises in question is not a public premises, the respondent No.1-Estate Officer seized of its jurisdiction and cannot proceed further in the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 is concerned, the same is also bereft of merit. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer is required to decide the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and its jurisdiction is not seized moment any party raise a question that premises in question not public premises. 22. The respondent No.1-Estate Officer is required to decide the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and its jurisdiction is not seized moment any party raise a question that premises in question not public premises. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaikhosrou (supra) has set aside the order of the Estate Officer while observing that it is an admitted fact that there exists bonafide long standing dispute regarding ownership of the premises in question. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case are reproduced hereunder :- “66. First, the facts set out above and the documents filed in their support, in no uncertain terms, establish that there exists a bona fide long standing dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property the appellants or Respondent No.1 (Union of India). 67. Second, respondent No.1 itself admitted that there exists a bona fide dispute between the appellants and respondent No.1 (Union of India) over the suit property involving disputed questions of facts (see Paras 7, 8 & 18 of the Review Petition filed by Respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal Nos.608-612 against the appellants in respect of suit property in this Court). 68. Third, respondent No.1 (Union of India) itself stated in this Court in earlier round of litigation while disposing of their Civil Appeal Nos.609, 611-613, 614 and 621 of 1980 that they would seek dispossession of the appellants from the property in question in accordance with law and, if need be, by filing civil suit in the Civil Court. The respondents cannot now be permitted to go back from their statement and take recourse to a remedy of summary procedure under the PP Act, which is otherwise not available to them.” 23. In the present matter, it is not the case of the petitioner-trust that bonafide long standing dispute regarding ownership of the premises in question is pending between it and the respondent No.3-board. 24. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaikhosrou (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 25. In the present matter, it is not the case of the petitioner-trust that bonafide long standing dispute regarding ownership of the premises in question is pending between it and the respondent No.3-board. 24. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaikhosrou (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 25. So far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raja Fateh Singh (supra) is concerned, in that case the Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that the Estate Officer wrongly placed reliance on some of the documents produced by the State Government claiming the property in question as public property. The Division Bench has observed that from the documentary evidence produced by the parties before the Estate Officer, it is clear that some dispute was there regarding ownership of the property in question and in such circumstance eviction order cannot be passed by initiating summary proceedings and only the civil court can decide the dispute regarding ownership of the property in question. 26. Hence, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raja Fateh Singh (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner-trust. 27. The petitioner-trust is required to produce the evidence before the respondent No.1-Estate Officer in support of its claim that the premises in question is of its ownership and not the public premises and the respondent No.1-Estate Officer is required to consider the said evidence and if found the ownership of the premises in question is prima facie doubtful, then only it can refuse to exercise powers under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. 28. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in this writ petition. 29. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 30. Stay petition also stands dismissed.