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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document