Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THE first writ petition has been filed by the landlord and the second writ petition by the tenant. A release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by landlord against tenant M/s. Har Nath Ram Nath was allowed ex parte by Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar on 20.3.1996 (numbered as Rent Case No. 171 of 1993). In execution of the said ex -parte order possession of the property in dispute was taken by the landlord through police force on 5.5.1996. Tenant filed restoration application on 17.5.1996 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 49/74 of 1996. Restoration application was allowed on 19.2.1997. Ex parte order dated 20.3.1996 was set aside and 10.3.1997 was fixed as next date in the main release application. On 13.3.1997 tenant filed an application for delivery of possession on the ground that he was evicted in execution of ex parte order and the said ex parte order had been set aside later on. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 46/74 of 1997. In the main case (Rent Case No. 171 of 1993) written statement was filed on 7.4.1997. Thereafter, on 24.4.1998 tenant's application for delivery of possession which was given on 13.3.1997 and was shown to be under section 24 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter on 16.1.1999 Prescribed Authority issued Parwana Dakhal for re -delivery of possession to the tenant. Thereafter, on 26.2.1999 prescribed authority directed the police authorities to affect the re -delivery of possession and file compliance report by the next day. However, re -delivery of possession could not take place. Thereafter, on 17.3.1999 landlord filed three applications numbered as 22/74, 23/74 and 24/74 of 1999. The prescribed authority on the said applications passed an order on 18.3.1999 staying re -delivery of possession/execution of Parwana Dakhal which had been issued on 16.1.1999. Thereafter, two writ petitions were filed in this High Court which were disposed of with direction to prescribed authority to decide all the application. Prescribed Authority on 31.1.2000 decided all the applications and directed the landlord to deliver possession of the property in dispute to tenant firm Har Nath Ram Nath within 15 days. First writ petition filed by the landlord is directed against the said order for re -delivery of possession dated 31.1.2000 passed by prescribed authority. Thereafter, tenant filed an application before prescribed authority praying that the hearing of the main release application (Rent Case No. 171 of 1993) shall be stayed until delivery of possession to the tenant of the tenanted accommodation. By order dated 9.5.2003 prescribed authority rejected the said application. The said order dated 9.5.2003 has been challenged by the tenant in the second writ petition.
(2.) IN my opinion application for re -delivery of possession after reversal of the order under which tenant was evicted could not be filed under section 24 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The relevant provision covering such situation is section 144, C.P.C. The said section is quoted below: 144. Application for restitution. - -(1) Where and in so far as decree (or an order) is (varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, the Court which passed the decree or order) shall, on the application of any party entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the possession which they would have occupied but for such decree (or order) or (such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified), and, for this purpose, the Court may make any orders, including orders for the refund of costs and for the payment of interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits, which are properly (consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of this decree or order). However, C.P.C. with all its rigour does not apply to proceedings before Prescribed Authority or District Magistrate under Rule 22(f) framed under section 34(1)(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it has been provided that Prescribed Authority shall have same inherent powers which are possessed by Civil Courts. Rule 22(f) - -the power referred to in sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned.
(3.) SECTION 151, C.P.C. prescribes/preserves inherent powers of Civil Courts.;