The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Judge, acting as the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974, does not act as a persona designata and his order is revisable under Section 115, C. P. C.

M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the District Judge, Chitradurga, in Miscellaneous appeal Nos. 129 and 130 of 1990 directing to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in which they are residing to the respondents within a period of 45 days.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are employees of the City Municipal Council, Davangere. M. Papa naik the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 5483 of 199c (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 130 of 1990) was working as a manager in the Davangere Municipality and he continued to work in that capacity till 14-7-1989. By an order dated 6-7-1989 passed by the Director of Municipal Administration, he was sent on deputation to Ramadurg Town Municipality temporarily. Thereafter, again the petitioner was repatriated and posted to the original place of work to work as an Assessing Officer vide order dated 18-12-1989 passed by the Government. Since then, the petitioner has been working as an Assessing Officer in davangere City Municipal Council. That being the position and facts of the case, the respondent by order dated 26-3-1990 directed the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in which he is residing within a period of 45 days and further directed him to remit a sum of Rs. 16,622. 50 as damages.

( 3 ) ABDUL Basheer the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 5690 of 1990 (M. A. No. 129 of 1990) was working as Accounts superintendent, Urban Development Authority, Davangere. While he was working at City Municipal Council, he was allotted a quarters. While he was working at City Municipal Council, davangere, he was transferred and relieved with effect from 5-6-1988 to the Office of the Commissioner, Urban Development authority, Davangere. In this place, he reported for duty on 2-11-1988 as Accounts Superintendent. Thereafter, the petitioner was on leave on medical grounds from 5-6-1988 to 1-11-1988. The quarters were allotted to the petitioner by the municipal Commissioner by order dated 11-6-1988 bearing No. GAD (Misc.) 32 of 1984-85 and the same is not a designated one, but a general one. With these being the facts of the case, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated 26-3-1990 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974, (for short 'the Act'), directing him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the quarters and further directed him to pay damages of Rs. 19,464. 85 on the ground that he has occupied the premises unauthorisedly. As against this, as stated earlier, among other petitioners these two petitioners also preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, before the district Judge, Chitradurga. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeals the operative portion of the order reads as follows :"in the result for the reasons stated above the appeals are partly allowed. The orders passed by the Estate Officer against the appellants insofar as they relate to the eviction of the appellants under Section 5 of the Act are confirmed. The impugned orders insofar as they relate to the recovery of damages under Section 7 of the Act are set aside. The estate Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh action for recovery of damages under Section 7 of the Act. The appellants have been granted 45 days from this date to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the municipal quarters in their occupation. If the appellants fail to vacate the quarters in their occupation within 45 days from this date, the respondents may take possession of the same in accordance with law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs",this order is questioned in these revision petitions.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners without going into the merits of the case has submitted that the order passed by the learned District Judge is contrar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document