JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - O.J.C. No. 1462 of 1979 is an application for judicial review by grant of certiorari of orders passed against the Petitioner by the authorities under the Orissa Land Encroachment Act and the orders passed in favour of Syed Ahmed Ali (O. P. No. 6) for grant of lease to him, who is the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982. O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982 is an application for quashing the decision in H. R. C. Appeal No. 57 of 1974 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur, granting eviction of the tenant. As the matters are inter-linked and the result of O.J.C. No. 1311 of 1982 would depend upon the outcome of the proceeding under the Prevention of. Land Encroachment Act, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. O.J.C. 1462/79: The Petitioner has alleged that he was in possession of 12 cents of land within the Berhampur Municipality in Mouza Bhapur. He constructed a house roof whereof was partly covered with tiles and partly with asbestos-sheet The house had a backyard and was situated on the embankment of Tania tank. After being in occupation for some time, he let out the premises to opposite party No. 6. He instituted a proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 6. Having lost in all the forums, he approached this Court in O.J.C. 1995 of 1975. This Court quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for disposal afresh by judgment dated 5-7-1977. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Berhampur, started a proceeding under the Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (Land Encroachment Case No. 92 of 1973) for eviction of the Petitioner from one cent of land. Order of eviction was passed on 16-8-1973. Though the Petitioner lost in appeal, he succeeded in revision. The revisional authority accepted his contention that notice as required by the provisions of the O.P.L.E. Act had not been served arid his other contentions had not been considered. So, it remitted the matter to the original authority for hearing. The Petitioner specifically raised two contentions, namely, (1) the land had not been properly described and, (2) the Municipality to whom the land belonged had not been made a party. So, it remitted the matter to the original authority for hearing. The Petitioner specifically raised two contentions, namely, (1) the land had not been properly described and, (2) the Municipality to whom the land belonged had not been made a party. It appears from the order dated 10-10-1975 that the Tahsildar issued notice to the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality to produce the records on the basis whereof the encroachment case had been instituted. During the pendency of the proceeding, Syed Ahmed Ali (Petitioner in O.J.C. 1311/82) made a motion to the Tahsildar for settlement of the land with him as he was a landless person. At one stage the Tahsildar directed that a joint verification be made by the Tahsil Amin and the Municipal Amin to ascertain the correctness of the assertions made by the Petitioner. It is also seen that the Petitioner then alleged that he was paying rent to the Revenue Department as well as to the Municipality. The Tahsildar, however, by order dated 26-7 -1976 dropped the proceeding so far as the Petitioner was concerned on the ground that he was not in occupation of the revenue land as per the sketch map. He further found that there had been encroachment of small parcel of land belonging to the Revenue Department by holders of stalls on municipal land and treated opposite party No. 6 as an independent encroacher and directed that the said opposite party might apply for annual temporary lease. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dropping the proceeding, carried an appeal to the Subdivisional Officer. By order as per Annexure-5, his appeal was dismissed. He was also unsuccessful before the revisional authority, vide the revisional decision in Annexure-6. He moved the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also dismissed his revision, vide Annexure-7. 3. In the House Rent Control proceeding it has been found that opposite party No. 6 was a tenant in respect of the premises and the appellate authority, has directed his eviction. He moved the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also dismissed his revision, vide Annexure-7. 3. In the House Rent Control proceeding it has been found that opposite party No. 6 was a tenant in respect of the premises and the appellate authority, has directed his eviction. One aspect has to be kept clearly in mind, i.e. if the small portion of vacant land adjacent to the house in question which the Petitioner alleged to have let out to opposite party No. 6 is appurtenant to the residental house and is necessary for its convenient user, it would not be open to opposite party No. 6 to contend that he is in independent occupation of the land unconnected with the house in question. Having been inducted as a tenant, he is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. The land in respect of which the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act has been initiated cannot be considered de hors the premises which is the subject matter in the house rent control proceeding. This is an important aspect. From the order dated 29-9-1975, it appears that opposite party No. 6 stated before the Tahsildar that he had taken the land on lease from Iswar Maharana (Petitioner) who said that it was his private land. If that be so it was not open to the Tahsildar to ignore the Petitioner and drop the proceeding as against him and treat the opposite party No. 6 as the encroacher and continue or initiate a proceeding as against him. The Petitioner was the real encroacher. Therefore, it was essential that efforts should have been made to clearly identify the land relating to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had delineated the land in his application filed in the proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act. It is also necessary to take into account the stand taken by opposite party No. 6 in the proceeding under the House Rent Control Act to determine if he had disputed the relationship and disputed the description of the premises. I am, therefore, of the view that all these aspects do not appear to have been considered by the Tahsildar and hence, remit the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh adjudication. The parties shall be given adequate opportunity of adducing evidence. I am, therefore, of the view that all these aspects do not appear to have been considered by the Tahsildar and hence, remit the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh adjudication. The parties shall be given adequate opportunity of adducing evidence. If the Tahsildar finds that the land belonging to the Revenue Department is a part and parcel of the house in question and had been encroached upon by the Petitioner, then he shall continue the proceeding against the Petitioner. If he holds that the vacant land belonging to the Revenue Department was later on encroached upon by opposite party No. 6, he shall drop the proceeding as against the Petitioner and proceed against opposite party No. 6. To enable the Tahsildar to ascertain the description of the property, the Petitioner is directed to file a certified copy of his application filed before the House Rent Controller. I, therefore, quash the orders passed by the Tahsildar dated 26-7-1976 dropping the proceeding as against the Petitioner and directing initiation of a proceeding against opposite party No. 6. If any order has been passed to grant lease in favour of opposite party No. 6, the same would also stand quashed. The Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the proceeding within four months from the date of receipt of the order. 4. O.J.C. 1311/82: The outcome of this proceeding would depend upon the result in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. In fact, it was contended before the lower appellate Court that the landlord had lost his title to the property having regard to the order passed in the land encroachment proceeding. But the said question was not adjudicated because of the pendency of the matter in this Court in O.J.C. No. 1462 of 1979. I, therefore, vacate the orders of the appellate authority and remit the matter for consideration on this question alone. If the land over which the house stands is settled with opposite party No. 6 in O.J.C. No. 1462 of 1979 Petitioner in this writ application-the application filed by Iswar Maharana (Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1462 of 1979) would be dismissed. If the same is not settled with Syed Ahmed Ali, his application for eviction shall be allowed. The finding of the lower appellate Court that Syed Ahmed Ali was a wilful defaulter shall remain undisturbed. 5. If the same is not settled with Syed Ahmed Ali, his application for eviction shall be allowed. The finding of the lower appellate Court that Syed Ahmed Ali was a wilful defaulter shall remain undisturbed. 5. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ applications are disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 6. I agree.