SHRI C. BALJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER C. Baljee was a lessee in Grand Hotel, Simla, initially for a period of one year with effect from April 15, 1965. The lease was renewable from time to time. There was some dispute between the parties in respect of the right of the Petitioner to continue in possession of the leased premises. We are really not concerned with the facts in this aspect for disposal of the present writ petition. Suffice it to say that the lessee was evicted sometimes in the year 1976.

(2.) THE Estate Officer (Respondent No. 2) after notice to the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short, "the Act") ultimately determined a sum of Rs. 1,31,416 as payable by the Petitioner as damages under various heads. This was by an order on December 10, 1981 (Annexure -PG). Section 9 of the Act provides for an appeal against an order passed by the Estate Officer. It lies to an appellate Officer, who, in terms of that section, shall be the 'District Judge' of the district or such other judicial officer of not less than ten years' standing as the District Judge may designate in this behalf. The appeal which the Petitioner filed was dismissed in default by the District Judge, Simla, on October 25, 1982. The Petitioner made an application for recalling that order. That application was also dismissed on July 20, 1983. Copies of these orders have been appended as Annexures PH and PI to the petition. The present writ petition was instituted in this Court on August 2, 198(sic). In it, the Petitioner has assailed the order of the Estate Officer dated December 10, 1981, demanding a sum of Rs. 1,31,416 as damages on its merits on various grounds He has also assailed the order of the District Judge dismissing the appeal in default as well as the order rejecting the prayer for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal, by the District Judge. Since we are not inclined to go into the legality and propriety of the order of the Estate Officer in the present writ petition, we did not permit the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to make submissions on the merits of the assessment and demand of damages from the Petitioner. We only permitted him to make his submissions in respect of the order dismissing the appeal in default and the one by which the prayer to recall that order was rejected by the District Judge.

(3.) SUPPORT for the submission that the District Judge, while acting as the appellate officer under Section 9, was a persona designata was sought by Shri Chhabil Dass from some decisions. In Harigovind Sharma v. Divisional Engineer Railway Administration South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur and Anr. : AIR 1966 MP 7, a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ruled that the District Judge acted as a persona designate while deciding an appeal under Section 9(4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. We find, however, that later in Ayodhya Prasad v. Union of India and Anr. : AIR 1983 MP 39, another single Judge of the same High Court, while dealing with an order of the District Judge under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, took the view that the Court of the District Judge, being a court subordinate to the High Court, the order passed by him was amenable to revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. In regard to the decision in Harigovind the learned Judge observed (in paragraph 4) that: