YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the tenants writ petition for quashing the order dated 3-12-1998 passed by 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moradabad (Prescribed Authority for short) refusing to consolidate the case No. 43/96 and P. A. case No. 8/98 pending under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute. The P. A. case No. 43/96 was filed by one Indkhab Alam claiming himself to be the landlord of the premises. Subsequently his uncle Mohd. Khalid filed another case namely P. A. case No. 8/98 against the petitioner for the same premises claiming himself to be the landlord. Petitioner filed an application dated 5-11-19981 under Rule 22 (e) for consolidation of these two cases. This application has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. He says application by different landlords against same tenant cannot be consolidated under Rule 22 (e ). Hence this writ petition. 1. Annexure-3 to the writ petition ( 3 ) IT is true that under Rule 22 (e)2 gives power to consolidate cases filed by one landlord against different tenants. This may help in assessing the bona fide need and comparative hardship. The actual accommodation with the landlord may be known. The Rule 22 (e) does not empower the Prescribed Authority to consolidate the cases filed by different landlords against the same tenant. But this does not mean that Prescribed Authority in no other case can consolidate the cases. All courts and tribunals have inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of law3; devise its own procedure subject to statutory prohibition4. So have the authorities and the courts under the Act. The Authorities and the Courts have inherent power not because of any legislature but because of their nature and constitution5. They have power to pass order in the interest of justice6 or follow procedure unless prohibited7 by law. Rule 22 (f)8 specifically confers inherent powers to make any order for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the authority concern. The Act does not prohibit consolidation of two cases against same tenant in respect of same premises by different landlords. The only limitation is - it should be in interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 2. The Act does not prohibit consolidation of two cases against same tenant in respect of same premises by different landlords. The only limitation is - it should be in interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 2. 22 Powers under the Code of Divil Procedure, 1908 (Section 34 (1) (g) : The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely- (e) the power toconsolidate two or more cases of eviction by the same landlord against different tenants; (f) The power referred to in Sctions 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the authority concerned. 3. ching Schmitz v. Manghani ( AIR 1977 SC 1569 paras 22-23)4. abhakara v. Desari Panakala Rao, AIR 1976 SC 1803 (para 13)5. (Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (P) Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2592 (22))6. Grindlays Bank v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606 para67. Devendra Nath v. ADJ, Agra 1977 All Rent Cas 4758. Kindly see foot no. 2 ( 4 ) THE present application has been dismissed on the ground that Rule 22 (e) does not empower the Prescribed Authority to consolidate the cases by different landlord against same tenant. The Prescribed Authority has not applied its mind whether these cases should be consolidated under inherent powers or not? May be it was because no such argument was raised or as the application was headed as under section 34 read with Rule 22 (e); the Prescribed Authority was misled. The fault is not his but that of the petitioner. He should have invited the attention of the Prescribed Authority to this aspect. Should proceeding be held up here or liberty be granted to petitioner to file fresh application? I think the later course is better. The dismissal of application under Section 22 (e) does not bar the filing of fresh application for the consolidation of cases under inherent powers. It is settled law that the Authorities/courts have greater power to review its interlocutory orders. I think the later course is better. The dismissal of application under Section 22 (e) does not bar the filing of fresh application for the consolidation of cases under inherent powers. It is settled law that the Authorities/courts have greater power to review its interlocutory orders. This is so held in a Full Bench decision of our court. 9 It is for Prescribed Authority to consider whether it is in interest of justice to consolidate the case or not under inherentpowers. The petitioner may apply again or challenge this order in appeal against final judgment as he is advised. There is no necessity to consider the validity of the order at this stage. 9. Avdesh Singh v. Bikram AIR 1975 All LJ 426 (para 9 (6)) : 1975 All 324) (FB) ( 5 ) WITH these observations the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .