JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders dated August 5, 1963 and October 14, 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Varanasi. 2. There is a house no. 1/70 in Mohalla Assi of the city of Varanasi. This house originally belonged to one Ram Prasad but was in possession of Arjun Singh as its tenant. It appears that in March 1949 an application was presented by Ram Prasad before the Rent Control Officer praying that the tenant Arjun Singh be ordered to deliver the possession of two rooms in the aforesaid house to him for his personal residence. On the basis of that application a case No. 108 under Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act was registered and an order on May 20, 1949 was passed by the Rent Control Officer which inter alia stated the parties have agreed that "the southern portion of the outer road side room consisting of two doors facing the road will be occupied by the applicant to the extent of half and that he will have no connection with the rest of the house." Accordingly, it appears thar Ram Prasad occupied that room and had been living in the same till the time of his death. 3. On June 27, 1963 a Misc. Application No. 2 of 1963 was presented by opposite party no. 2 in the court of the Additional District Magistrate Varanasi on the allegations that the applicant was the tenant of the entire house, that he had permitted Ram Prasad to live in the southern half portion of the road side room, that Ram. Pd. was dead and his son Mewa Lal has sold away the entire house to Amarnath Sahu, that Mewa Lal removed all his articles from. the said half portion of the room which was lying vacant since April 1963 and has put a lock on the room to harass him and that the applicant was entitled to occupy that room also. A prayer was made in the application that the police station Bhelupur be directed to get the lock opened and possession delivered to the applicant. 4. A prayer was made in the application that the police station Bhelupur be directed to get the lock opened and possession delivered to the applicant. 4. On this application the learned Additional District Magistrate passed the following order on September 5, 1963:- "Let the lock in the room abutting the road of house No. B1/70 be broke open in presence of two respectable persons of locality and possession of room delivered to Sri Arjun Singh. In case any articles are found in that room inventory thereof shall be prepared and articles placed in the custody of some respectable persons. In case the owner of the house claim them as their own, they may be handed over to him." 5. An application was presented before the learned Magistrate for review which was rejected by him on October 14, 1963. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application on the ground that the impugned order having been passed by the Additional District Magistrate in his executive capacity is not amenable to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, however, find no force in this contention. 7. In the application filed by the opposite party it was clearly mentioned that Ram Prasad was the owner of the house and that he had ben living in that room for the last about 14 years. It was also alleged that Ram Prasad was dead and his son Mewa Lal had sold away the house in favour of the applicant and that a lock was put on that room by Mewalal. Therefore, in order to pass any order on this application it was but essential for the learned Additional District Magistrate to give a judicial finding as to whether in the circumstances narrated in the application Arjun Singh was entitled to get possession over the room. Therefore, in order to pass any order on this application it was but essential for the learned Additional District Magistrate to give a judicial finding as to whether in the circumstances narrated in the application Arjun Singh was entitled to get possession over the room. In other words, in terms of the application on which the impugned order has been passed, there was a lis between the parties and the learned Additional District Magistrate, curiously enough, without giving notice to the applicant or to Mewa Lal passed an order directing the ponce to remove the lock and to hand over the possession of the room to Arjun Singh, because in his opinion, possession of Ram Prasad over the room was that of a mere licensee and the applicant was entitled to get back the possession. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the order passed by the learned Magistrate can never be described by any stretch of imagination si to be an executive order as it decides a lis between the parties. This being so, the order is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. 8. There can be no doubt that the impugned order passed by the learned A.D.M. is against the principles of natural justice and wholly illegal. He had no jurisdiction to direct the police to remove the lock from the room and to hand over its possession to the applicant without issuing notice to Mewa Lal or to his transferee who is the applicant in this case. His order has resulted in miscarriage of justice and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In the result, I quash the orders dated August 5, 1963 and October 14, 1963 passed by the Additional District i Magistrate of Varanasi in connection 1 with Misc. Case No. 2 of 1963 and direct that the possession of the room be restored to the party from whom the possession has been taken under the impugned order.