1. The short point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the District Judge, Jammu, could transfer an appeal filed against the order of the Estates Officer, (Controller of Aerodromes) Delhi Region, Civil Aviation Department, New Delhi, to the Additional District Judge, Jammu, under the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act in this judgment).

2. It is not necessary for me to go into detailed facts of the case except to state that the Estate Officer (Controller of Aerodromes) Delhi Region Civil Aviation Department, acting under section 5(1) of the Act ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises of Airport Restaurants at Civil Aerodrome, Jammu, within thirty days of the publication of the said order. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act before the District Judge Jammu. On 30th October 1975 the learned District Judge, Jammu, transferred the appeal to the Additional District Judge, Jammu. The petitioner after the order of transfer, approached the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, with an application stating that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal since no proper transfer of the case had been made to him by the District Judge. This application was rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 17-12-1975. The petitioner has come up in revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against this order of the Additional District Judge, rejecting to accede to the request of the petitioner not to hear the ease.

3. Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel for the petitioner In support of the revision petition has submitted in the first instance that since the learned District Judge has stated in his order that he was transferring the case under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1977 and there being no such Act of 1977, the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned District Judge to transfer the case was illegal.

4. A perusal of the order of the learned District Judge shows that he ha mentioned "1977" instead of "1971" while mentioning the year of the Act but that is purely a typographical mistake and does not vitiate the order of the learned District Judge. I would therefore, repel this argument of Mr. Sehti, and hold that the transfer has been made under section 9 of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1971 and that the said transfer is not bad on account of the alleged mistake.

5. Mr. Sehti, has then contended that the District Judge could not transfer the case to the Additional District Judge, as when he hears appeals under the Act he does so as an appellate authority and not as a court, and an appellate authority being persona designata has no jurisdiction to delegate his authority. This argument, to my mind has no merit. A plan grammatical reading of section 9 of the Act, which reads as follows:-

"Appeals:-(1) An appeal shall Le from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or 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 fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub- action (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 by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document