Jayachandra Reddy, J.A question of general importance, viz. whether "appellate authority" named in Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act No. XV of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act") is intended to act as a persona designata or as a Court and whether the High Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can transfer the appeals from the Court of the "appellate authority" to any other Court, has arisen in these cases.

2. The facts that give rise to these questions may be stated.

3. In most of these cases the petitioners are either tenants or landlords. An eviction petition was filed in the Court of the Rent Controller u/s 10 of the Act, in one case and it was dismissed and the landlord filed an appeal in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, u/s 20 of the Act. The Chief Judge, however, transferred the batch of such appeals to the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, exercising his administrative power. The validity of the said order is questioned in these Civil Revision Petitions. The High Court by its proceedings ROC No. 843/E1/86 dated 12-3-1986 exercising its administrative power transferred 185 Rent Appeals to the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. The validity of this order also is questioned by way of Writs of Mandamus to declare that the order passed by the High Court is illegal.

When the matters came up before our learned brother Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. he felt that the question is of general importance and should be decided by a Bench. Thus these matters came up before us.

4. The main contention in all these matters is that u/s 20 of the Act, the appellate authority, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court is the persona designata, that he alone is competent to hear these appeals and that the Additional Chief Judge, to whom the appeals are transferred has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Similarly the other contention is that the High Court exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot transfer these matters from the file of the Chief Judge, to the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, since the Addl. Chief Judge cannot hear such appeals for the same reason, viz., that it is the Chief Judge who, as the persona designata, can alone hear the appeals.

5. We shall now refer to Section 20 of the Act which is in the following terms :

"Section 20 :-- Appeal -- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge, or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge to the Prl. Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area aforesaid."

6. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that as against the order of the Rent Controller an appeal is provided, in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge, or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge, to the Principal Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area. Though in Section 20 the expression "Chief Judge, Small Causes Court" is used, we do not find any such designation in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act, 1330 Fasli. In the said Act, Section 3 defines the "Court of Small Causes" as to mean "a court established under this Act" and Section 4 deals with the establishment and composition of Court of Small Causes, and lays down that the Government may establish a Court of Small Causes at any place in the area to which this Act extends and define the local limits of its jurisdiction and appoint a Judge for the Court of Small Causes and if necessary appoint Additional Judge or Judges. Section 4 of the A.P. (T.A.) Small Causes Courts Act reads thus : --

"4. Establishment and Composition of Court of Small Causes :-- The Government may --

(1) establish a Court of Small Causes at any place in the area to which this Act extends and define the local limits of its jurisdiction;

(2) appoint a Judge for the Court of Small Causes and if necessary, appoint Additional Judge or Judges;

(3) appoint the place or places at which the Court of such Judge or Additional Judge or Judges shall be held;

Provided that no person shall be appointed as Judge unless he is in the opinion of Government qualified for appointment as a District Judge and no person shall be appointed as an Addl. Judge unless he is in the opinion of Government qualified either to be appointed as an Additional District Judge or as a Subordinate Judge.

(4) When a person is appointed as an Additional Judge on the ground that in the opinion of Government, he is qualified for appointment as a District Judge, his pecuniary jurisdiction shall be the same as that of a Judge, Small Causes Court, and where a person is appointed as an Additional Judge on the ground that he is qualified for appointment as a Subordinate Judge, his pecuniary jurisdiction shall extend to Rs. 1000/- and in either case at the time of his appointment or as soon as possible thereafter, the extent of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional Judge concerned shall be notified in the Official Gazette."

7. Section 5 deals with the powers of Judge and Additional Judge and it reads as follows : --

"5. Powers of Judge and Additional Judge : --

(1) An Additional Judge of a Court of Small Causes shall discharge such functions as may be assigned to him by the Judge of that Court and in the discharge of those functions, shall exercise the same powers as the Judge.

(2) The Judge of a Court of Small Causes may transfer to himself any case or proceedings pending before an Additional Judge.

(3) When the Judge is absent an Additional Judge may exercise all the powers of the Judge.

(4) Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to authorise an Additional Judge to exercise powers in excess of his pecuniary jurisdiction." .

8. Before we proceed further, we want to make it clear at this stage that we are not, for the purpose of this case, concerned with "Additional Judge" who is of the rank of a Subordinate Judge, because u/s 20 the Appellate authority is the Chief Judge in the City. We are concerned only with Addl. Judges who are of the rank of the District Judge. However, it can be seen that the words "Chief Judge" as such are not used in these sections. But we can take it that u/s 4 of the A.P. (T.A.) Small Causes Courts Act "the Judge" appointed may for convenience sake has been called Chief Judge as distinguished from Additional Judges of the same grade or other Additional Judge. As per the language of Section 20 of the Act we take it that the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court is the "appellate authority".

9. The next important question is, whether he is intended to act as a persona designata. The meaning to be given to the word "person a designata" depends upon the context in which the expression is used. In Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon the meaning of "Persona Designata" is given as follows : --

"Persona Designata :

Where a person is indicated in a statute or legal instrument not by name, but either by an official designation or as one of a class, a question sometimes arises whether he ceases to be the person so indicated on losing his official designation or his character as one of the class, or whether the intention was to single him out as a persona designata, that is, as an individual, the designation being merely a further description of him. Designatio personae then, in general, means simply the singling out by description of a party to a deed or contract : or a person taking thereunder such party or person being in turn called persona designata. (Ency. of the Laws of England). When difficulty is found in ascertaining whether a person takes as persona designata, the maxim "Designatio unius est exclusio alfcrius et expressum facit cessare tecitum "is applicable; in other words, if one person is specified, another is excluded on the principle that what is expressed makes what is only understood to give way."

10. According to OSBORN Concise Law Dictionary, "persona designata" means, a person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character."

11. In several enactments white conferring powers on "appellate authority" the Legislature makes its intention clear implying whether the authority is intended to act as the "persona designata" or not.

12. In the decisions reported in M. Abdul Wahid Sahib Vs. Dewanjee Abdul Khader Sahib, , Chinnaiah Thevar v. F.N. Badsha, (1948) 1 Mad LJ 314 : (AIR 1948 Mad 439 ) and S. Rajam Ayyar v. Pavanambal (1949) 1 Mad LJ 419 : (AIR 1949 Mad 787 ) a question directly arose whether the "appellate authority" under the Rent Control Act acts as a "persona designata" and the courts decided that he acts only as "persona designata". But these are all cases where there is no much of discussion about the scope and extent of the power to he exercised by the "appellate authority" vis a vis, as the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court. In this context it is necessary to bear in mind that it is the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court that can hear the appeals. If there are more than one such Judge, then the other Judges of the same grade are called as the Addl. Chief Judges. Is it necessary, therefore, to restrict the scope of the meaning of the "appellate authority" used in Section 20 of the Act to such an extent as to mean that the Addl. Chief Judge of a Small Causes Court who has the powers of a Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, cannot hear an appeal even though the same is transferred as per the Rules and procedure In our view it is not necessary to lay such embargo.

13. We shall now proceed to consider some of the decisions which throw some light in understanding the context in which the Legislature has prescribed such authorities.

14. In Bathula Krishna Brahmam and Others Vs. Daram Chenchi Reddy and Others, a Division Bench of this Court while examining a case which arose u/s 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, reviewed the earlier authorities and having regard to the context in which the Magistrate is empowered to act u/s 87 of the Act concluded that the Presiding Officer viz. the Magistrate was selected to act in a particular mailer in his private or individual capacity does not : act as a "persona designata" and there is no warrant for treating the Magistrate performing the functions allotted to him by Section 87 as one acting as the "persona designata" and not as a court. The Division Bench also examined some earlier decisions and their Lordships however, observed that the judicial precedents are not uniform.

15. The next important decision is that of, a Full Bench reported in The Public Prosecutor v. Laciselly Ramayya (1975) 1 Andh WR 133. There the scope of Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act came up for consideration under which provision confiscation proceedings could be taken and the "appellate authority" mentioned in Section 6(c) is the District and Sessions Judge and he has to deal with those appeals filed u/s 6(c) in the Sessions Court. A question arose, whether he acts as a "persona designata "and not as a Court. The Full Bench reviewed almost all the cases decided by several High Courts including our own High Court. In the evidence Act, the Court is defined as including all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. The words "Court" and "judge" are many times used as interchangeable terms. In Chatur Mohan and Others Vs. Ram Behari Dixit, the Allahabad High Court observed (at p. 564) --

"I am not enamoured of the distinction made between a Munsif and A Court of Munsif and of the argument based upon it to the effect that a Munsif acts as a persona designata whereas a Court of Munsifs acts as a Court constituted under the Act. A Court of Munsif it certainly means a Court and not a persona designata but the converse is not always true."

16. At this stage we may refer to the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in identifying the "authority" viz. who acts as a persona designata or as a court. The Full Bench observed --

"When a reference is made to the presiding Officer of a Court whether it meant to refer to the Courier to him personally and refer to the fact of his presiding over a Court simply to describe or identify him depends upon the intention to be gathered from the nature of the act he has to perform and other surrounding circumstances.

Therefore, from the mere fact that in the notification of the Government for the appointment of the appellate authority the expression "the District and Sessions Judge of each district" is used instead of the Court over which such officer presides, it does not necessarily follow that the District and Sessions Judge is mentioned as persona designata and not in his capacity of presiding over the District and Sessions Courts."

17. In the instant case much stress has been laid on the words "Chief Judge", "Small Causes Court" in support of the argument that he acts only as a "persona designata". We have already noted that the words "Chief Judge" do not find place in the A.P. (Telangana) Small Causes Courts Act. Section 4 of the said Act makes it clear. It is only for convenience sake and for facilitating procedural aspects the word is used. There is no such designation as "Chief Judge" in the Small Causes Courts Act. Therefore, just as we find a District and Sessions Judge and Addl. District Judges in a District, as already noted, Section 5 confers power on the Judges and Addl. Judges of Small Causes Court. But, what all Section 5 lays down is that an Additional Judge of a Court of Small Causes shall discharge such functions as may be assigned, to him by the Judge of that Court. In this context, the expression "Judge" means the "Chief Judge". It is only in that context the expression "Chief Judge" is used in Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the "appellate authority" u/s 20 of the Act viz. the Chief Judge is referred, as to mean that he should act as a "persona designata". In other words, when a reference is made in Section 20 of the Act to the "appellate authority" as the "Chief Judge "it only means the Judge of the Small Causes Court and is not mentioned as "persona designata." We may once again mention that the expression "Chief Judge " in Section 20 of the Act is only to describe or identify and this becomes clear when we examine Section 20 of the Act in the light of Sections 4 and 5 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act. Therefore, u/s 5 the Judge who could otherwise also be called the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court can assign or transfer the appeals on his file to the Addl. Chief Judges for disposal. Section 20 of the Act even if interpreted strictly can only mean that all those appeals have to be filed before the Chief Judge i.e., the Judge of the Small Causes Court and the Chief Judge can exercise powers u/s 5 and transfer them to the Addl. Chief Judges, of the Small Causes Courts, who for identity and distinction sake are being called as the "Addl. Chief Judges."

18. In this contex it is also useful to note that the words "Court" and "judge" are frequently used in the statutes assynonymous and in the instant case we have no hesitation in holding that the appellate authority u/s 20 viz. the Chief Judge or otherwise called the Judge of the Small Causes Court is not appointed as the "persona designata" for any particular case.

19. In Ramachandra Rao v. State of Madras, AIR 1962 Andh Pra 58 the learned Judge referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, and observed --

"The expression "persona designata" connotes a person pointed out by name or other personal description in contradistinction to one whose identity is to be ascertained by the office which he holds. So then, where a person is indicated in a Statute not by name but by an official designation, a question will arise whether the intention was to single him out as a persona designata that is, as an individual, the designation being merely a further description of him or it was that he would cease to be the person so indicated on losing his official designation. Surely if he be a judicial officer as in this case and is intended by the statute to act not otherwise than in a judicial capacity or court of civil jurisdiction, he cannot come within the expression "persona designata" so that he may, irrespective of his continuance in office, perform the duty. Whether the intention is one or the other has to be gathered from the words used, nature of the functions to be performed and object and purpose of the statute."

20. In The Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Dwarka Prasad, the definition given for "persona designata" in OSBORNS Concise Law Dictionary was accepted as correct and it is observed that a persona designata as the phrase implies is a person pointed out by name or other personal description in contradistinction to one whose identity is to be ascertained by the office which he holds.

21. After giving our careful consideration, we think that this complication, viz., whether a "Chief Judge" of Small Causes Court referred to as "appellate authority" in Section 20 of the Act acts as a "persona designata" has mainly arisen due to the fact that the words "Chief Judge" are used. We have made it clear at more than one place that it is before the Judge of the Small Causes Court the appeals against the order of the Rent Controller have to be filed and for description and identity sake he is described as "Chief Judge" and the Addl. Judge of the same grade is described as "Additional Chief Judge."

22. The words "Chief Judge" as such do not occur in the Small Causes Courts Act. Similarly in A.P. (Telangana Area) Civil Courts Act, 1954 also u/s 12 it is mentioned that the First Judge of the City Civil Courts may from time to time make such arrangement for distribution of the business of the Courts among various Judges thereof and the Second Judge of the City Civil Courts shall, subject to the general or special orders of the High Court, discharge all or any of the functions of the First Judge, which the First Judge may assign to him. But, over the years, we have been using the words "Chief Judge" instead of "First Judge", till the Act was substituted by Act 19 of 1972. Likewise, in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act, though originally the words used were "Judge" and "Additional Judges", the words "Chief Judge" and "Addl. Chief Judge" are being used in practice. Therefore, the mere use of the words "Chief Judge" in Section 20 of the Act does not make him as a "persona designata". The A.P. (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act also could have been amended on the same lines as A.P. Civil Courts Act (Act. 19 of 1972) to avoid all these complications. It is desirable that such an amendment should be made as early as possible.

23. The general principle laid down by the Full Bench in The Public Prosecutor Vs. Legisetty Ramayya and Another, , applies on all fours to the facts of this case. Accordingly we hold that the appeals against the judgments of the Rent Controller have to be filed before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and he has got power u/s 5 to assign them to the Addl. Chief Judges who can dispose them of. Since we have held that the Chief Judge u/s 20 of the Act is not the persona designata, the High Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution can transfer the appeals to the Addl. Chief Judge, for disposal. Therefore, the proceedings of the High Court in ROC. No. 843/E1/86, dated 12-3-1986 are perfectly valid.

24. We may also point out at this stage that the same principle applies to the mufussil area and the Principal Subordinate Judge is not persona designata u/s 20 of the Act. As discussed above, appeals under the Act have to be filed before the Principal Subordinate Judge and he has power to assign them to the Additional Subordinate Judges Who can dispose them of.

25. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Now the Civil Revision Petitions have to be heard on merits and accordingly they may be posted before the regular court hearing Civil Revision Petitions for being disposed of on merits. No costs.