JUDGEMENT
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. -
(1.) These two revisional applications are taken up together for disposal as it involved a common question of law. A proceeding under the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was initiated against the revisional petitioner. In compliance of the provisions of the said Act and upon due completion of the proceeding thereunder the petitioner was directed to vacate and give up possession of the dispute premised to the opposite parties by a notice issued under Section 5 of the said Act on 21st April, 1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of eviction before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. The Chief Judge in course of his business transferred the said appeal to the Court of VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta for its disposal The petitioner accordingly made an application before the VIIIth Bench for sending back the case records of the said appeal to the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court on the plea that in view of Section 9 of the said Act, the Chief Judge alone is empowered to take up the appeal for hearing and no other Bench of the City Civil Court is competent and/or authorised to hear the same. The said application was rejected by the impugned order which is the subject-matter of this revisional application.
(2.) Thus the short question involved in this revisional application is whether an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act would only be decided by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in exclusion of other Benches of the said Court.
(3.) To appreciate the aforesaid question it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act which reds as under:-
"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 5-B or Section 5-C or Section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situated 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 under sub-section (1) shall be preferred,
(a) in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 5, (within twelve days) from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section;
(b) in the case of an appeal from an order (under Section 5-B or Section 7, within twelve days) from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant; and
(c) in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 5-C, within twelve days from the date of such order:)
Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the (said period), if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit:
Provided that where the construction or erection of any building or other structure or fixture or execution of any other work was not completed on the day on which an order was made under Section 5-B for the demolition or removal of such building or other structure or fixture, the appellate officer shall not make any order for the stay of enforcement of such order, unless such security, as may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been given by the appellant for not proceeding with such construction, erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal.)
(4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible.
(5) The cost of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and the Chief Judge or the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court therein shall be deemed to be the District Judge of the District.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.