The jurisdiction of the appellate officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act is determined by the officer's status as a judicial officer with at least 10 years' standing, without the requirement of being an Additional District Judge.

Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri. A.K. Goyal appearing for the Petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri. K.K. Rai appearing for the Respondent.

2. By these two writ petitions, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 4th March, 2004, passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1999, Pankaj Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Misc. Appeal No. 91 of 1999, Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, as well as the order dated 17th August, 1999, passed by District Judge, Bareilly, transferring the appeals for disposal to the Court of 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly.

3. Notices under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued to the Petitioners consequent to which proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed orders directing for eviction of the Petitioners on 29th June, 1999. The Petitioners filed appeals against the said orders u/s 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Bareilly. The said appeals were registered as Public Premises Appeal Nos. 90 of 1991 and 91 of 1991 and proceeded for hearing. The appeals were proceeding in the Court of 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly, for disposal. It appears that applications were filed by the Petitioners in the year 2004 praying that the 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly, has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The said objection has been rejected by the 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly, by the impugned judgments dated 4th March, 2004, which have been challenged in the writ petitions.

4. Sri. A.K. Goyal, challenging the orders, contended that u/s 9 of the Act, appeal can be decided only by the District Judge or by Additional District Judge having 10 years standing as Additional District Judge. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bawa Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 P&H 69.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned orders and contended that impugned orders have been passed by Additional District Judge who has more than 10 years standing as an judicial officer, hence there is no error in the orders passed by Additional District Judge.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7. Section 9 of the Act provides that appeal shall lie from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises 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. Section 9(1) of the Act, which is relevant in the present case, is extracted below:

9. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under (Section 5 or Section 5B) or Section 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.

8. The principal submission pressed by Counsel for the Petitioners is that u/s 9 of the Act appeal can be decided by only a District Judge or an officer having ten years standing as Additional District Judge. Section 9(1) of the Act is very explicit. The appellate officer, according to Section 9, shall be the District Judge or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years' standing. The words used in the section are, "judicial officer in that district". The Legislature is presumed to be aware of the meaning of words used in the section. The words, "Judicial Officer, District Judge, Additional District Judge, Civil Judge" have definite connotation and meaning. The Legislature has used the word "judicial officer" and not the word "Ad