ORDER
Rama Jois, Ag. C.J.
1. In this Writ Petition referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:
“Whether an Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to dispose of an appeal presented under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974?”
2. The facts of the case are these: The petitioner took a premises belonging to the Municipal Council, Davanagere on lease for a term for the purpose of running a hotel. The period of lease came to an end on 31-3-1983. Thereafter the Municipal Council issued a notice to the appellant to vacate the premises. As he failed to vacate the premises, proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer appointed under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (‘the Act’ for short) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the premises. Rejecting his objections to the show cause notice, an order was passed on 24-7-1986 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the said order.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Chitradurga under Section 10 of the Act. The appeal was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, to whom the matter was assigned by the District Judge to dispose it of on merits. The Additional District Judge has held that the petitioner has become an unauthorised occupant after 31-3-1983 and therefore the order passed by the Estate Officer is in accordance with law. The objection of the petitioner that the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal, was rejected,
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred this petition. In view of the general question of law involved in this case. It was referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
5. Sri Kamath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of this Court in STATE OF MYSORE v. P. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO, 1975(2) KLJ 280 contended that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act was a persona designata and therefore, not a Court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of that expression under Section 115 CPC and therefore, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC does not lie to this Court against the order of the District Judge made in an appeal presented under Section 10 of the Act.
6. In our opinion, the said decision is not apposite to the question arising for consideration in this case. The precise question which arises for consideration in this case is when by an act of legislature, a jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judge, whether the said jurisdiction could be exercised by an Additional District Judge of the same District. In fact, this was the precise question which was considered by Division Bench of this Court in GANESH RAO v. SARPHINA D’SOUZA BAI, 1975(2) KLJ 352. In the said case, the matter arose under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Under Section 48 of the said Act, an appeal lies against the order of the Controller or the Court to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the premises was situated. The question raised in the said case was, the Additional District Judge had no Jurisdiction. The contention was negatived. In our opinion, the ratio of the said decision applies on all fours to this case.
7. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the provisions of Section 48 of the Rent Control Act and Section 10 of the Act side by said:
Section 48 of the K.R.C. Act, 1961
Section 10 of the Act
“48.
Appeals: (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, every person
aggrieved by an order under Section 14 Section 16,Section 17 or Section 21 passed by the
Controller or the Court, may within thirty days from the date of the order,
prefer an appeal in writing to the Dis-trict
Judge having jurisdiction
over the area in which the premises are
situate.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Appeals:-
(1) “An appeal shall lie from every order of the competent officer
made in respect of
any public premises under
Section 5 or Section 7 to an Appellate Officer who shall be the District Judge,
having jurisdiction over the area.”
(Emphasis supplied)
As could be seen from both the provisions, the appeal lies to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the relevant area. In coming to the conclusion that an Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal under Section 48 of the Rent Control Act, the Division Bench relied on Section 5 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 which provides for appointment of Additional District Judges. It reads:
“5. Appointment of Additional District Judges:-
(1) The State Government may, on the recommendation of the High Court, appoint one or more Additional District Judges to a District Court for such period as it may deem necessary.
(2) The Additional District Judge so appointed shall, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court, discharge all or any of the functions of the District Judge under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force which the District Judge may assign to him, and in the discharge of those functions, he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.”
Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 empowers the State Government to appoint Additional District Judges and under Sub-section 2), the Additional District Judge is empowered to exercise all or any of the functions of the District Judge under the Civil Courts Act, or under any other law for the time being in force, as and when the District Judge assigns the case to the Additional District Judge. It is in view of this the Division Bench held that the Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to dispose of an appeal presented under Section 48 of the Rent Control Act if such appeal was assigned to him by the District Judge. For the same reason it should be held that the Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal presented under Section 10 of the Act if such an appeal is assigned to him by the District Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to make out that such matters could be assigned by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge if there were general or special orders of the High Court. This interpretation of provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 by the learned Counsel is not correct. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 5, the District Judge is given power to assign any case to any Additional District Judge subject to the general or special orders of the High Court. This only means if there are special or general orders issued by the High Court, regarding distribution of work, District Judge has to exercise this power subject to such discretion. In the absence of any general or special orders of the High Court, the District Judge has the discretion to assign any case to any Additional District Judge. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the absence of any general or special order leads to the absence of power to the District Judge to assign any case to Additional District Judge.
8. One more point urged by the learned Counsel to distinguish the decision in Ganesh Rao’s case was that under Section 48 of the Rent Control Act, 1961 the appellate jurisdiction was conferred on the District Judge, whereas the power under Section 10 of the Act, it is conferred on an Appellate Officer who shall be the District Judge. The learned Counsel placed stress on the words ‘Appellate Officer’. We are unable to agree that the use of those words makes any difference at all. Under both the provisions the Appellate Authority is the District Judge. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission.
9. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the question set out as follows:
“An Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to dispose of an appeal presented under Section 10 of the Act if the appeal is assigned to him by the District Judge.”
In the present case it is not In dispute that the appeal had been assigned to the Additional District Judge by the District Judge. Therefore the disposal of the appeal by the Additional District Judge was with jurisdiction.
10. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, we find no merit at all. As held by this Court in INDIAN BANK v. BLAZE & CENTRAL (P) LTD., the only two questions which are required to be considered both by the Estate Officer and the District Judge acting under the Act, is whether the premises In a given case Is a public premises and whether the person concerned has become an unauthorised occupant. No other question arises for consideration in a case under the Act. In the present case, undoubtedly the premises is a public premises as it belongs to the Municipal Council, Davanagere and as the lease had come to an end by efflux of time on 31-3-1983 the petitioner had become an unauthorised occupant. Therefore, the order passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law.
11. In the result, we make the following order:
Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.