JUDGMENT

Mulla, J. - These are two connected applications in revision which raise the same question of law for consideration. The applications are directed, in each case, against an order passed by an Additional Magistrate purporting to act under the House Rent Control Order. It appears that rents of same tenements were fixed by the Area Rationing Officer, but subsequently orders ware passed by the Additional District Magistrate modifying those orders. The application being aggrieved by the orders, passed by the Additional District Magistrate have come up in revision to this Court.

2. On behalf of the crown a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that no revision lies to this Court against the orders in question. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants I find that this objection is sound and must prevail. The Additional District Magistrate has purported to act, in each case, under the House Rent Control and Eviction order. It appears that u/s 2 of the Defence of India Act the power to frame certain rules and orders has been conferred in the first place on the Central Government. The Central Government, can, however, delegate that power to the Provincial Government and the latter again under Sub-Section 5 of Section 2 of the Act can delagate its power to any officer or authority subordinate to it. The House Rent Control and Eviction Order was passed under the powers so delegated and the Additional District Magistrate has purported to act in the exercise of the power so delegated to him. The simple question for consideration therefore, is whether the officer or authority to whom power is delegated by the Provincial Government under Sub-Section 5 of Section 2 of the Defence of India Act is a Court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that this Court would be authorised to call for the record of that Court u/s 435 and to deal with it u/s 439, Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion the answer is obviously in the negative. The officer or authority to whom powers are delegated by the Provincial Government is really a persona designate and not a Court. The same view has been taken in the case of Hari Kishan Das v. Emperor 1946 AWR (HC) 438. I therefore dismiss these applications.