JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. This is an application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed on behalf of the petitioner for a direction to the respondent Subdivisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, to pass an order for restoring the possession of holding co. MR 1-15 and holding no. MR-1-17 situated in the Ramgarh Cantonment Area, to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he was running a small hotel in the aforesaid two holdings in Ramgarh Cantonment area. Opposite party no,1 was the owner of two holding and she had let them out in the year 1964 to the petitioner On a monthly rent of Rs. 95/-. According to the case of the petitioner, he paid rent in terms of the lease to opposite party no.1 but later opposite party no.1 wanted to dispossess the petitioner from those two holding and with that object she filed an application on 19.8.1975 before the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Hazariragh, making a prayer to put her in possession of those two holdings. It appears that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate called for a report from the local Police and on receipt of the report, on 20.9.1975 passed an order directing the local police to put opposite party no. 1 in possession of those two holdings. Before passing the aforesaid order no notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner learnt about the same on, 2.10.1975 when the local police officers, and the Block Development officer, went at the spot and forcibly removed the belongings of the petitioner and delivered possession of the holdings in question to opposite party no.1. After some enquiry the petitioner came to learn about the orders passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate and there after he filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, for quashing the impugned order dated 20.9.1975 passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. The said criminal revision was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 185 of 1975 and it, was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, who, by his order dated 22.12.1975, set asid the order holding that it was wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as the learned Subdivisional Magistrate was not authorised in law to direct local police to take possession of the holdings in question from the petitioner and to deliver the same to opposite party no.1. After the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Subdivisional Magistrate for an order of restoration of holding no. MR-17 from which, he petitioner had been dispossessed in view of an earlier order passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, which had been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned that so far as holding no. MR-I-IS is concerned the petitioner remained in possession there of in view of stay order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at the time of admission of the criminal revision application. On the petition filed for restoration the learned Subdivisional Magistrate by his order dated 26.12. 1975 directed the officer-in-charge of Ramgarh police station to restore possession of holding No, MR-1-17 to the petitioner with immediate effect, The petitioner has stated that the aforesaid order dated 26.12.1975 was, however, recalled on 27.12.1975 by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate on a petition being filed by opposite party no. 1 saying that no order for restoration has been made by the learned Sessions, Judge. The petitioner made an attempt to get the order dated 27.12.1975 recalled but the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, rejected the same by his order dated 17.1.1976 saying that his order dated 26.12.1975 should not be given effect to. A copy of the said order is annexed to the writ application. The petitioner has sought relief in this writ application, on the basis that opposite party no.1 has come in possession of the holding in question, on the basis of an illegal order passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate on 20.9.1975 which was given effect to by the local police. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although the holding belonged to opposite party no.1, the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the same as a tenant and the learned Subdivisional Magistrate was not justified in directing the local police to dispossess the petitioner and to put opposite party no.1 in possession there of without adopting the procedure prescribed in Jaw. In my opinion there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In my opinion there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. If the opposite party no.1 wanted to recover possession of the holding in question and to evict the petitioner, for that a procedure is prescribed in law and she had to take recourse to court in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate could not have entertained an application on behalf of opposite party no.1 for the said relief. I am not in a position, to appreciate as to how the learned Subdivisional Magistrate entertained the said application and, over and above, passed the impugned order without even giving show cause notice to the petitioner. In my opinion, the procedure adopted for eviction of the petitioner, had no authority of law and the petitioner in the circumstances is entitled for the relief prayed for. 4. In the result, I allow this application and direct the Subdivisional Magistrate (opposite party no. 2) to take steps to put the petitioner in possession of holding no. MR–1–17 from which the petitioner has been evicted in pursuance of an earlier order passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. Application allowed.