Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for restoration or possession of old holding no.21 new 23, which situate in civil line gaya, from which he has been dispossessed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with the help of the police in pursuance of an order passed by the then District magistrate, Gaya, Mrs. Raj Bala Verma. There is no dispute that respondent No.9 is the landlord and the petitioner is a tenant and they are governed by the provision of the Bihar Building (Lease, nt and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The landlord filed an eviction suit No.6/1990 in the Civil Court for the eviction of the petitioner the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and was decreed by the appellate court on 21-7-1993. Therefore, respondent no.9, the landlord, instead of pursuing the remedy under the Code of civil Procedure approached the then district Magistrate, Gaya, and in pursuance of an order passed by her which has been communicated by the Addl. Collector to the Sub-Divisional magistrate, the decree holder was put in possession by the Executive magistrate with the help of the police on 5-9-93. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents on the ground that under the law they have no power to remove the petitioner from the premises unless the decree holder are put in possession by the Civil Court in execution of the decree. 3. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities it appears that they have admitted that they had handed over the possession to the decree-holder in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate. However, they have tried to justify the order on the ground that they were under the impression that the decree of the appellate Court was being executed and there was some law and order problems caused by the tenant in giving delivery of possession. 4. The question is as to whether the respondents authorities have any power in law to deliver the possession to decree holder in the manner as has been done by them. The essence of the rule of law is that even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only according to law. In case of leases even after the expiry of the same the lessor has no right to take possession by extra judicial means. The essence of the rule of law is that even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only according to law. In case of leases even after the expiry of the same the lessor has no right to take possession by extra judicial means. He can only take possession according to law. The Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. V/s. Maharaja Dharmendra and Ors. and Lucknow Development Authority and others V/s. Maharani raj Laxmi Kumari Devi and Ors. , 1989 s. C.997, has held that a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. 5. Admittedly, a decree for eviction has been passed against the petitioner in the case. Unless the judgment-debtor voluntarily gives up possession of the premises or decree is executed and possession is delivered through the process of the court the decree-holder has no right to occupy the premises either forcibly or with the help of any other authority. The District Magistrate or the executive authorities have no power under any law to deliver possession unless an order to that effect is passed by the civil court in a proper proceeding. Thus, the action of the District magistrate directing his subordinate officers to put in possession to the decree holder is without jurisdiction and has no sanction in law. 6. The question is as to whether the judgment-debtor has to be put in possession or not in view of the fact that the landlord suit has been decreed by the appellate Court. It is to be stated that a civil revision was filed against the appellate decree which has been dismissed for default and M. J. C. application is pending. 7. As the decree holder adopted extra-judicial means to obtain the delivery of possession.1 am of the view that only appropriate order that can be passed in this case is to direct the decree holder to restore the possession to the petitioner, otherwise this unauthorised act will set a bad trend and will encourage the people either to take law in their hands and to approach the police and executive authority to deliver the possession on wholly extraneous or illegal consideration. 8. 8. Accordingly, the decree holder respondent No.8 is directed to hand over the possession to the petitioner within three weeks from today in presence of the subdivisional Magistrate gaya who is directed to be present at the time of delivery of possession. However, it will be open for the decree holder to take possession of the same by executive decree in accordance with law. 9. The action of the then District magistrate, Gaya, Mrs. Raj Bala Verma, as stated above, is highly condemnable. She has virtually taken the law in her own hands in the sense that without any authority of law she has directed her subordinate to put the decree holder in possession in a wholly unauthorised manner. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the warranted act of the then d. M. , Gaya Accordingly, she is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000 to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of service of a copy of the order on her. In case the said amount is not deposited by her then it will be open for the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy available in law for the recovery of the same. 11. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Order Accordingly.