JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the Addl. District Magistrate of Varanasi which he had passed in an application in revision. 2. The fact appears to be that one Smt. Kastura, widow of one Dwarka Sahai, applied to the City Magistrate stating that there was a house belonging to her in which a tenant had been living. The tenant had absconded after locking the house. There was an apprehension that during the rainy season the house would fall and an irreparable loss would be caused if the house was not immediately repaired. It was, therefore, prayed that through police aid the lock of the house may be opened, a list of the property may be prepared and possession of the house be delivered to her. The application was made on 18-6-1957. On 22-8-1957 the City Magistrate passed an order that the police would break open the lock of the premises, make an inventory of the articles found therein and keep them in safe custody, in the presence of two respectable persons of the locality and possession over the house was to be delivered to the applicant, i.e., Smt. Kastura. Thereupon the lock was broken open, list of goods prepared and possession of the house delivered to Srimati Kastura. 3. An application was made on the 18th September on behalf of Hira Lal tenant with the allegation that he and his brother Chhedi had been living in the house in dispute as tenants, that they were carrying on a grain shop in the outer room and in the inner portion they had been living since about 20 years and paying a rent of Rs. 15 a month, that Dwarka Shahai was the owner of the house who had recently died, that after his death, according to the instructions of the deceased, the rent was being regularly paid to Smt. Lalmani, widow of one Ganga Prasad, who was the daughter of Dwarka Sahai, that one Jagdish Prasad claimed to be the son of Dwarka Sahai and Smt. Kastura claimed to be his widow and they wanted rent, from him and were pressing for the game but that since he did not know them and since he knew that Smt. Lalmani was the only daughter and heir of the deceased, he continued to pay the rent to her. Hira Lal in his application mentioned that on 10-6-1957 he had, with his family, gone in a marriage ceremony after leaving his property in the house and locking it and that during his absence Smt. Kastura took undue and illegal advantage of taking possession of the house illegally through the aid of the police. His house had been broken open and a list of the goods prepared, but many things had been missing, and the allegation was that they had been misappropriated by the opposite party in collusion with the police. It was contended that the order of 22-8-1957 passed by the City Magistrate, Varanasi was entirely improper, inequitable and unknown to any provision of law. The learned Magistrate did not pass any order on this application. Thereafter there was an application in revision before the Addl. District Magistrate Varanasi who heard the parties and thereafter said that this order was passed by the City Magistrate in his judicial capacity and since there was no provision under which the Magistrate could pass that order he set aside that order and ordered delivery of the house as well as of the property to Hira Lal, opposite party in the present application. 4. Aggrieved by the order Smt. Kastura has come to this Court in revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the Addl. District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Magistrate, that all that he could do was u/s 435 Code of Criminal Procedure to refer the case to this Court with his recommendation, and had no jurisdiction in himself to modify that order. 6. Secondly, it had been contended that if this order is not deemed to be a judicial order even this Court have no jurisdiction. It was further contended that if the order of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate Varanasi was without jurisdiction this Court was bound to interfere u/s 435 read with S. 439, CrPC. 7. Be that as it may, even if the Addl. District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order, it is open to this Court, if that order was a judicial order, u/s s. 435 and 439, Code of Criminal Procedure to pass the same order, as that order is an equitable and just order, and I would maintain that order. District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order, it is open to this Court, if that order was a judicial order, u/s s. 435 and 439, Code of Criminal Procedure to pass the same order, as that order is an equitable and just order, and I would maintain that order. As regards the contention of Learned Counsel that this Court has no jurisdiction, I think u/s 561A even if that be not a judicial order but an administrative order, this Court has full power of superintendence u/Art. 227 of the Constitution and also full power to pass any order in the interest of justice to prevent abuse of the process of the court u/s 561 A. I cannot conceive of worse case than the present one, where a tenant, who had been living in the house since about twenty years was dispossessed forcibly by the police though he had regularly been paying the rent. There appears to be a dispute as to the proprietorship of the house and it has not been fully established whether Smt. Kastura was at all the owner of the house and had any right to it. 8. In the circumstances I hold that the order of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate was an eminently just and equitable order and, therefore, I maintain that order and dismiss this application. The stay order is discharged.