JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—Heard. The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22.4.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, passed in appeal, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, affirming the order of the Estate Officer, passed under Section 5 (1) and Section 7 (1) of the Act, insofar as the eviction of the petitioner from House No. 37-38/SO BSL Colony, Sundernagar, is concerned. 2. At the time of admission, a question as to the maintainability of the present revision petition against the appellate order passed under Section 9 of the Act, arose. 3. Section 10 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the ratio of the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ayodhya Prashad v. Union of India and another (AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 39), has contended that the revision petition, against the appellate order passed under Section 9 of the Act, is maintainable. The learned Single Judge, while coming to the conclusion that a revision petition is maintainable under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the District Judge passed in appeal, under Section 9 of the Act, has held that the appellate authority appointed under the Act is not a persona designata and is a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such the revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be maintainable. 5. It is significant to note that the learned Single Judge, while holding to the above extent, does not appear to have taken note of the earlier decision of another single Judge of the same High Court in Hargovind Sharma v. Divisional Engineer Railway Administration South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur and another (AIR 1966 Madhya Pradesh 7), wherein it has been held that an appeal under Section 9 of the Act lies to the District Judge as persona designata and not to a Court of the District Judge and as such no revision petition against such order is maintainable. 6. 6. Section 9 of the Act provides that an appeal from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises, under Section 5 or Section 5-Bor 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 situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the District Judge may designate in this behalf. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Since the appeal lies not to the Court of the District Judge but to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge or such other judicial officer as may be designated by him, the ration laid down in the earlier case of Madhya Pradesh High Court, that is, Hargovind Sharmas case (supra), appear to be more appropriate and is required to be followed. Therefore, I hold that the District Judge, while deciding the appeal under Section 9 of the Act is not a Court but a persona designata and no revision petition lies against the order passed in exercise of the powers under Section 9 of the Act. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. C.M.P. No. 133/99 Dismissed as infructuous. Dasti copy on usual terms. Revision petition dismissed.