Parkash Lal vs Sant Singh

Weston, C.J.—This Civil Revn. raises a short point the jurisdiction of the Addl. Dist. J. to hear appeals u/s 15, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

Clause 1(a) of that section provides that the Provincial Govt. may by a general or special order, by notification confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of the Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. By Notification No. 1562-Cr. 47/9228 published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 14-4-1947 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 1(a) of Section 15 the Governor of the Punjab conferred on all Dist. and Ses. Judges in the Punjab in respect of the urban areas in their respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of the Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13.

In the present instance there is no dispute that an order was made u/s 4 of the Act and an appeal was filed in the Court of the Dist. J. in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the notification described above. The learned Dist. J. however, purporting to act in exercise of his powers u/s 21(2), Punjab Courts Act IV(4) of 1918 assigned the appeal to the Addl. Dist. J., at Amritsar, and the Addl. Dist. J, then proceeded to determine the appeal. The unsuccessful party has filed the present revn. Appellant to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the Addl. Dist. J. had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal.

Two preliminary points are taken on behalf of the Respondent. The first is that there was no proper presentation of the revn. Appellant. It seems that the power filed by Mr. Mahajan for the applicant although signed by the applicant does not state in terms whom he appoints as his advocate. The practice of this Court, however, is that appeals and revn. Appellants are not presented personally. According to Rule 1, chapter 1-A, vol. V of the Rules and Orders of the H.C. of Lahore, all ordinary appeals and Appellants for review or revn. should be presented by litigants or their advocates by depositing them in the petition box of the Court outside the room of the Deputy Registrar between certain hours on working days.

The purpose of making this rule is I think fairly obvious, but the rule is unusual, and I may suggest gives scope for controversy as to whether there has been proper presentation. There is nothing in the rule to require the litigant after putting his appeal or other Appellant in the box to remain in the Court premises. There is, therefore, no moans of ascertaining by whom the appeal or Appellant has been placed in the box. Be that as it may, in the present instance while there is nothing to show who put the revn. Appellant in the box, it is I think too late now for the other side to raise the question, for the question is of fact, and the Petitioner has had no opportunity of meeting any objection by affidavit or otherwise.

The second preliminary objection is that by reason of Clause (4) of Section 15, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act no Appellant by way of appeal or revn. can lie from the decision of the appellate authority. This is perfectly true but quite obviously it has application only to the decision of the proper appellate authority. If some Court or person having no jurisdiction to hear the appeal has heard the appeal it is obvious that such order is a nullity, and Sub-section (4) of Section 15 could in no way bar any Appellant for revn. or other similar remedy in this Court.

Coming to the short point in the case it is material to refer to Sections 18 to 21, Punjab Courts Act. Section 18 provides classes of Civil Courts which are set out in the section as (1) the Court of the Dist. J., (2) the Court of the Addl. Judge and (3) the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Section 19 provides for the division of the territories under the administration of the Local Govt. into civil districts. Section 20 provides for the appointment of one Dist. J. to each district with the proviso that the same person may be appointed Dist. J. to two or more districts. Section 21 provides for the appointment of Addl. Judges. Such appointments can be made by the Local Govt. when the business pending before any Dist. Judges requires the aid of an Addl. J. or Judges for its speedy disposal. Clause (2) of Section 21 provides that an Addl. J. so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a Dist. J. which the Dist. J. may assign to him and in the discharge of those functions he shall exercise the same powers as the Dist. J.

As the title of the Act itself states the Act provides for the creation of Courts the powers of Courts and regulation of business before those Courts and if the Dist. J. acting as the appellate authority u/s 15, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, is not acting as a Court then quite clearly Section 21(2) can have no application. The Dist. J. can derive no authority from Section 21(2) to assign the disposal of an appeal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to an Addl. J. and an Addl. J. hearing such an appeal in the absence of notification u/s 15, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, authorising him to hear appeals acted without jurisdiction in hearing the present appeal. The question, therefore, reduces to whether the Dist. J. authorised to hear the appeal is a Court or a persona designata. This question came before a F.B. of this Court in Pitman''s Shorthand Academy v. Lila Ram and Sons 52 P.L.R.P. 1 : AIR 1950 E.P. 181 F.B.) where it was held that a Dist. J. authorised under the Notification No. 1562-Cr-47/9228 does not act as a Court in hearing the appeal but as a persona designata. It is not necessary for me to set out the reasons which led the F.B. to their decision. I need only say that with respect I find myself in agreement with those reasons. This finding which is binding on me concludes the matter. I must accept the contention that the Addl. Dist. J. who has not been authorised by notification to hear appeals u/s 15, Urban Rent Restriction Act, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the present case. The jurisdiction vested in the Dist. J. did not vest in him as a Court and he| had no jurisdiction u/s 21(2) to assign the appeal to the Addl. J. The result is that the rule in this matter must be made absolute and the appeal which was properly presented must be remanded to the learned Dist. J. for disposal. Costs to be costs in the appeal. Parties to appear before the Dist. J. on the 8-1-1951.