MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised in this petition pertains to tha practice and procedure to be followed under the Bangalore City civil Court Act, 1979. ( 2 ) THE Corporation of the City of bangalore, petitioner in this writ petition, is the owner of Shopping Complex at Jayanagar, commonly known as "jayanagar Shopping Complex". The complex has a Cinema Theatre called "poonem Theatre". Respondent No. 2 was the Lessee. After terminating the leae, the Competent Officer of the Corporation, initiated proceedings for eviction under Section 4 of the Karnataka public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. Those proceedings culminated in an order of eviction. Against this order, the lessee filed an appeal under Section 10 of the act. ( 3 ) THE Act has constituted the district Judge as the Appellate Authority ; in Banglore, under the City Civil courts Act, every Judge of the City Civil court exercises the powers vested in munsiffs Court, Civil Judges Court and districts Court. It consists of Principal city Civil Judge and number of other judges, appointed as Judges of City civil Court Each Judge is competent to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court. The principal City Civil Judge is the Administrative head of the City Civil Court. The powers of distribution of business of the Court among the Judges, vests in him - See Section 5 (2 ). The word "judge" as defined in the Act means the principal City Civil Judge and a City civil Judge of the Civil Court. ( 4 ) THE power of hearing Appeal under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 is given to the District Judge. In the City of Bangalore, this power can be exercised by the Principal City Civil Judge or any other Judge nominated by him (Emphasis added ). While under Sub- section (2) of Section 5, the expression employed is "distribution" in Section 12 (2) (b) it is "nomination". They are distinct terms with separate connotations. The act of distribution is purely administiative and is a routine arrangement ; the act of "nomination", though administrative connotes the delegation of power with specific reference to an individual or designation. While under Sub- section (2) of Section 5, the expression employed is "distribution" in Section 12 (2) (b) it is "nomination". They are distinct terms with separate connotations. The act of distribution is purely administiative and is a routine arrangement ; the act of "nomination", though administrative connotes the delegation of power with specific reference to an individual or designation. The distribution may be by a general order, allocating the work to one or more Courts with reference to subject matter, the 'nomination' is an allocation with reference to an individual or in the context, the Presiding Officer of particular Court. The person so authorised becomes a 'nominee'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'nominate' is as follows : "a. orginally to name, call or designate; b. to name or appoint a person to an office or position ; c. to name a person as a candidate for election or appointment to propose for office. " ( 5 ) THE act of distribution may be by general order as every Judge of the city Civil Courts is competent to deal and dispose of the matter filed in that court, in case of 'nomination', there is "personification", which enables the judge so personified to deal and dispose of the matter, to the exclusion of others. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, in the process of 'distribution' it was allocated to Court Hall No. 3, there is no 'nomination'. The petitioner raised a contention that in the absence of specific order of "nomination" as contemplated by Section 12 (2) (b), the Judge had no competence to hear the matter. This was repelled on the ground "the Appeal is ordered to be potted" before the Judge. In the Check Slip, it is mentioned thus: - ( 7 ) WHILE it is allocated to C. H. No. 3 the further order that it shall be entrusted to "15th City Civil Judge, may clothe the particular Judge, at the relevant point of time to act as a nominee. In practice Court Hall No. 3 may be presided over by any Judge, who need not necessarily be 15th ; as the present judge is not. In practice Court Hall No. 3 may be presided over by any Judge, who need not necessarily be 15th ; as the present judge is not. If without mentioning the number, which applies to a particular judge, who is at No. 15, if it had been stated as "presiding Officer, C. H No. 3", every Judge, who substitutes or replaces the Presiding Officer in that court Hall will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mentioning of number, may create complication the transfer of that Judge, necessiates a fresh order from the Principal City Civil Judge, as and when a new Judge is posted to that court. In the day-to-day working, this may not be possible. Hence, to give full effect to the legislative mandate, nomination by designation would be appropriate and free from criticism. ( 8 ) ON facts, the contention needs to be upheld. The order of the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Hence, I make the following order : (i) Rule made absolute; W. P. allowed ; impugned order is quashed; (ii) The Principal City Civil Judge, bangalore, is directed to nominate a judge in the light of the above observation. After such nomination, the nominee Judge shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is made clear, that since all the judges of City Civil Court have equal competence the proceedings so far conducted can not be treated as illegal or without jurisdiction, in view of the de facto doctrine (See Gokaraju rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1981 SC1473 ). (iii) No costs. ( 9 ) COPY of this order alongwith the records be transmitted forthwith. Writ Petition is Allowed. --- *** --- .