Weston, C.J:— This Civil Revision raises a short point of the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to hear appeals under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
2. Clause 1(a) of that section provides that the Provincial Government 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.
3. By Notification No. 1562-Cr.-47/6228 published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary), dated the 14th April, 1947, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 1(a) of section 15 the Governor of the Punjab conferred on all District and Sessions 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 section 4, 10, 12 and 13.
4. In the present instance there is no dispute that an order was made under section 4 of the Act and an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the notification described above. The District Judge, however, Page: 49purporting to act in exercise of his powers under section 21(2) of the Punjab Courts Act VI of 1918 assigned the appeal to the Additional District Judge at Amritsar, and the Additional District Judge then proceeded to determine the appeal. The unsuccessful party has filed the present revision application to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
5. Two preliminary points are taken on behalf of the respondent. The first is that there was no proper presentation of the revision application. 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 revision applications are not presented personally. According to Rule 1, Chapter 1-A, Volume V, of the Rules and Orders of the High Court of Lahore, all ordinary appeals and applications for review and revision 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.
6. 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 application in the box to remain in the Court premises. There is therefore no means of ascertaining by whom the appeal or application has been placed in the box. Be that as it may, in the present instance while there is nothing to show who put the revision application 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.
7. The second preliminary objection is that by reason of clause (4) of section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act no application by way of appeal or revision 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 application for revision or other similiar remedy in this Court.
8. Coming to the short point in the case it is material to refer to sections 18 to 21 of the Punjab Courts Act. Section 18 provides classes of Civil Courts which are set out in the section as (1) the Court of the District Judge, (2) the Court of the Additional Judge, and (3) the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Section 19 provides for the division of the territories under the administration of the Local Government into Civil Districts. Section 20 provides for the appointment of one District Judge to each district with the proviso that the same person may be appointed District Judge to two or more districts. Section 21 provides for the appointment of Additional Judges. Such appointments can be made by the Local Government when the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of an Additional Judge or Judges for its speedy disposal. Clause (2) of section 21 provides that an Additional Judge so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him and in the discharge of those functions he shall exercise the powers as the District Judge.
9. 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 District Judge acting as the appellate authority under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is not acting as a Court then quite clearly section 21(2) can have no application. The District Judge 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 Additional Judge and an Additional Judge hearing such an appeal in the absence of notification under section 15 of the 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 District Judge authorised to hear the appeal is a Court or a persona designata. This question came before a Full Bench of this Court in Pitman's Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons 52 P.L.R 1 , A.I.R 1950 E.P 181 (F.B), where it was held that a District Judge 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 Full Bench 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 accent the contention that Additional District Judge, who has not been authorised by notification to hear appeals under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Act, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the present case. The jurisdiction vested in the District Judge did not vest in as a Court, and be had no jurisdiction under section 21(2) to assign the appeal to the Additional Judge. The result must be that the rule in this matter must be made absolute and the appeal which was properly presented must be remanded to the District Judge for disposal. Costs to be costs in the appeal. Parties to appear before the District Judge on the 8th of January 1951.
10. Rule made absolute.