V. S. DESHPANDE, C. J.

( 1 ) THE main point of interest arising in this case is the distinction between a Judge acting as a persona desigiata and he acting as a court. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, challenges the validity of an order passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, acting as the appellate officer under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (the Act ). Section 9 reads as follows : 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 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 made under sub-section shall be preferred, (a) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section 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 by sufficient cause from filing 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. (6) For the purpose of this section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and the chief judge or the principal judge of the city civil court therein shall be deemed to be the district Judge of that district. "

( 2 ) A preliminary objection is raised as to the maintainability of this petition on two grounds ( 1 ) that the appellate officer is not a "court" within the meaning of clauses and (5) of the amended Article 227; and (2) at any rate it is not a court against an order of which either an appeal or a revision lies to the High Court. Clauses and (5) of the amended Article 227 are as follows :

" Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction. (5) Nothing in this article shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision".

( 3 ) THE word "court" is not defined for the purpose of Article 227, but it may be taken to have been used in the same sense in Clauses ( 1 ) and (5 ). It is only such courts against whose orders either an appeal or a revision lies to the High Court which come within the compass of the amended Article 227.

( 4 ) THE appeal is always a creature of a particular statute. Without a specific provision in a statute, there is no right of appeal. The decision of the Appellate Officer under section 9 has not been made appealable by the Act of 1971. A revision to the High Court of an order of a court or of Tribunal may be provided for by a particular statute or in respect of a court a revision may lie under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the Act of 1971 does not provide for a revision against the order passed under section 9, the only question for Consideration is whether a revision against such an order would lie to the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This would happen only if the appellate officer acting under section 9 can be covered by the words "any court subordinate to such High Court" used in section 115 of the Code. The meaning of the wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document