JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - Notices had been issued on the question of admission to the opposite parties and notice bad also been issued to the opposite parties 15, 16, 17 and 18 indicating therein that the matter may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The opposite parties including Nos. 15 to 18 have appeared through Mr. K.N. Jena. This matter is admitted and in pursuance of the order No. 2 dated 16-9-1988 is beard and finally disposed of. 2. The order impugned in this revision is one which arose out of a petition filed by the opposite party Nos. 15 to 18, tenants in respect of the disputed house, seeking repair of the premises under their occupation. The learned Subordinate Judge, on consideration of the Petitioner, directed the Petitioners who were substituted as Defendants 9(a) to 9(e) in the trial Court to carry out the repairs by sealing the holes in the roof and clearing the water passages so that rain water may not leak into the tenanted shop rooms. 3. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners urges the sole question that the tenants, being strangers to the suit, the petition at their instance could not be entertained and orders passed thereon. 4. The suit out of which this revision arises is one for partition and is at the final decree stage. Admittedly the opposite party Nos. 15 to 18 are not parties to, the suit and hence a petition, at their instance to repair the, shop rooms under their occupation was not entertainable. Mr. K.N. Jena, learned, counsel appearing for the opposite parties brings to the notice of the Court an order earlier passed on 6-5-1977 by this Court in First Appeal No. 184 of 1972 which had been filed as against the preliminary decree passed in the suit. In the order directions bad been issued to the Subordinate Judge to pass appropriate orders, an similar application filed before him by the tenants, far repairs of the premises by the deceased Defendant No. 2 who had been appointed as receiver of specific properties. The repairs were not carried out. It is also the admitted case that the Respondent No. 9 had been appointed as, receiver of specific properties. The repairs were not carried out. It is also the admitted case that the Respondent No. 9 had been appointed as, receiver of specific properties. Both the receivers were later an discharged, and since then no receiver has been appointed, in respect of the properties even though it is submitted that an application for the same is pending. That being so no advantage is available to the tenants to be taken of the order dated 6-5-1977 passed in. First Appeal No. 184/72 which has since been disposed of and the Petitioners being not receivers, the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass orders on the petition directing the Petitioners to carry out the, repairs of the houses, The other submission raised by Mr. Jena that since the House Rent Control Act, has expired, Section 10 thereof cannot be invoked by the tenants and that they are without any remedy to have the repairs effected has no relevance so far as the suit is concerned and the submission also may not be correct since even if a contention may be advanced that in the absence of the House, Rent Control Act, no application can be filed u/s 10 in the house Rent Control Case pending against the tenants which question does not arise for decision here yet remedy may be available to them under the common law far compelling the landlords to carry out the repairs. 5. It has been next contended by Mr. Jena that the order impugned shows the Petitioners to have undertaken to carry out the repairs and hence the order should be complied with. Even if the Petitioners' counsel had so undertaken yet since consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court. I am constrained to hold that the very application of the tenants was not available to be entertained by the learned Subordinate Judge and the entire exercise by him in passing the impugned order was misconceived and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. It is however open to the parties in the suit to file a petition before the learned Subordinate Judge if they are so advised seeking the relief desired. 7. In the result the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed