ORDER 1. The only question involved in the case is whether the Rent Controlling Authority has power to review its order? 2. The brief facts of the case are that an application for eviction was filed by the applicant against the non-applicants. In the earlier case, there was no dispute as to rate of rent and it was the admitted position that the rate of rent is Rs. 65/per month. The order of eviction was passed by this Court is Civil Revision No. 280/93. Since the premises were non-residential, therefore, the tenant was entitled for damages on the basis of standard rent between the parties, However, the Rent Controlling Authority directed that it shall determine the standard rent for fixing damages and directed the parties to adduce evidence in respect of fixation of standard rent. Since the order was contrary to order of eviction passed in Civil Revision No. 280/93 an application for review was filed stating that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court standard rent would mean the agreed rent between the parties. The law is laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhkaran Patni v. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal 1989 JLJ 359 = 1989 MPLJ 750 . The only question involved in the present case is whether the Rent Controlling Authority exercising the powers of execution under Section 35 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to review its orders. The Rent Controlling Authority has held that the power of review is not vested with the Rent Controlling Authority as he is exercising the powers under the provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that under the provisions of Small Cause Court Act there is no provision for review. The law nowhere lays down for review of an order passed in execution proceedings. Section 35 of the Act is reproduced as under :- "35. Rent Controlling Authority to exercise powers of Civil Court for execution of other orders. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that under the provisions of Small Cause Court Act there is no provision for review. The law nowhere lays down for review of an order passed in execution proceedings. Section 35 of the Act is reproduced as under :- "35. Rent Controlling Authority to exercise powers of Civil Court for execution of other orders. Save as otherwise provided in Section 34, an order made by the Rent Controlling Authority or an order passed in appeal under this Chapter or in a revision under Chapter III-A shall be executable by the Rent Controlling Authority as a decree of a civil Court and for this purpose the Rent Controlling Authority shall have all the powers of civil Court." Section 35 of the Act provides that the order of eviction passed under the provisions of Chapter-III-A shall be executable by the Rent Controlling Authority as a decree of civil Court and for this purpose, the Rent Controlling Authority shall have the powers of the Civil Court. 3. Learned counsel for the non-applicants invited my attention to the provisions of Section 23-D of the Act and submitted that the Rent Controlling Authority is performing the function of the Court of Small Cause, therefore, power of review is not vested with the Rent Controlling Authority. Looking at the provisions of Section 23-D of the Act it is apparent that the powers of Rent Controlling Authority while holding an enquiry in a proceedings for eviction he is required to follow as far as practicable procedure of the Court of Small Cause. The provision is limited for holding enquiry in respect of application for eviction but after the order of eviction is passed then execution of the order is provided under Section 35 of the Act. Sec. 35 of the Act empowers the Rent Controlling Authority with all the powers of the civil Court and for the purpose of executing its order he exercises all the powers of Rule 16 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Rules provides that Code of Civil Procedure be generally followed in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules, the Rent Controlling Authority shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Since no specific provision is provided for execution of the order and the power to execute the order as a decree of Civil Court have been given to the Rent Controlling Authority in the absence of any provision the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable in execution proceedings under Section 35 of the Act. In these circumstances the application for review was maintainable before the Rent Controlling Authority. The Rent Controlling Authority erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. The order is set aside. 4. Looking at the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhkaran Patni (supra) the authority cannot delay the proceedings for fixation of standard rent. The standard rent would mean rent agreed between the parties. The rate of rent was not disputed. Under Section 23-D of the Act the requirement before eviction is the payment of amount of compensation equally to double the amount of standard rent where the accommodation has, for a period of ten complete years immediately preceding the date on which the landlord files application for possession been used for business purpose and in other cases the amount of annual standard rent. The standard rent between the parties is Rs. 65/- per month and there is no necessity to determine the standard rent. The Rent Controlling Authority is, therefore, directed to pass appropriate orders directing deposit of compel station on the basis l of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month and immediately on deposits of the amount warrant for eviction be issued without any delay. 5. The order is set aside. The revision succeeds and is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Counsel fee as per schedule.