Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 7-9-1982 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Biharsharif (respondent No. 2) in Case No. 461 (M.P.) 82 and as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus to restore back possession in respect of the portion of the premises. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner allegedly is a tenant in respect of a building situated at Rajgir in the district of Nalanda where he runs a hotel. According to the petitioner, monthly rental in respect of the said building in question was Rs. 175/-. It appears that the respondent No. 4 filed an application on 6-9-1982 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda, alleging therein that the said hotel was closed for about two years and in the said application he made a prayer that the vacant possession of the said premises should be given to him through a Magistrate after making inventory of the articles of the petitioner kept in the hotel. A copy of the said application is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. By an order dated 7-9-1982 the learned Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing him passed an order which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition and thereby directing the Officer in charge, Rajgir (respondent No. 3) to make inventory of the articles in presence of the Circle Officer, Rajgir and further directing him to give the vacant possession of the aforesaid premises to the landlord (respondent No. 4). 5. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned order respondent No. 3 prepared an inventory in respect of the articles, which were kept in the hotel premises. The said inventory is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 6. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, to say the least, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 which Act applies to the entire State of Bihar. By reason of the said Act, only a Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decree for eviction and that too on one or the other grounds enumerated under S.11 thereof. By reason of the said Act, only a Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decree for eviction and that too on one or the other grounds enumerated under S.11 thereof. The Sub-divisional Officer, therefore, should not have exercised any jurisdiction whatsoever directing eviction of the petitioner from the said premises. 7. It is unfortunate that an officer of the rank of Sub-divisional Magistrate behaves so irresponsibly and that too in such an arbitrary manner inasmuch as it is clear that he purported to have passed the order in hot haste and although no power in this regard is vested in him. Even the minimal requirement of natural justice was not complied with by the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order. 8. Such a procedure is wholly unknown to law and clearly violates the rule of law. 9. In Ashok Kumar Yadav V/s. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 the Supreme Court has clearly held that justice should not only be done but it should seemingly appear to have been done. 10. From the facts stated above it is evident that even there had not been an attempt on the part of the Sub-divisional Officer to show that he has been acting judicially. Such apparent illegal orders cannot be sustained. 11. In this case although a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 but nobody has appeared when the case was taken up for hearing. 12. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit it appears that the respondent No. 4 merely raised various controversial questions of facts therein. However in para 6 of the counter-affidavit the said respondent admitted that at least at one point of time there had been a relationship of lessor and lessee between him and the petitioners. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are hereby directed to hand over possession back to the petitioner as also the articles which were found in the premises in question within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. 14. 3 and 4 are hereby directed to hand over possession back to the petitioner as also the articles which were found in the premises in question within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. 14. As the respondent No. 2 has passed an illegal order at the instance of respondent No. 4, the petitioner is entitled to recover costs for this writ petition both from the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 which is quantified at Rs. 5,000.00 which would be borne by the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 respectively in equal proportion. 15. It however goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a suit for damages as against the respondent No. 4 for evicting him from the premises in question without taking recourse to law.