S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) APPLICATION Nos. 136929 of 2003 filed by tenant-petitioner on 11. 8. 2003 and 191525 of 2003 filed by landlord-respondent on 14. 8. 2003 are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51135 of 2002) has been filed by tenant-petitioner against judgment and orders passed against him by prescribed authority under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. Prescribed Authority/ J. S. C. C. , Meerut, by its judgment and order dated 14. 3. 2002, allowed the release application which was numbered as P. A. Case no. 51 of 2000. Appeal numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2002 was dismissed with slight modification by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut, through judgment and order dated 14. 11. 2002. Through order dated 30. 11. 2002, passed in the writ petition eviction of tenant-petitioner was stayed till 31. 1. 2003. The stay order was extended from time to time and by the last extension order dated 24. 4. 2003 stay order was directed to remain in operation till 30. 7. 2003. On 28. 7. 2003, application for extension of stay order was filed. The said application on 30. 7. 2003 was directed to be listed with the record in the next cause list. Unfortunately the case was not listed in the next cause list. i. e. , cause list of 6. 8. 2003. On 7. 8. 2003, possession of the shop in dispute changed hands from tenant-petitioner to landlord-respondent. According to the tenant-petitioner he was forcibly ejected by the landlord on 7. 8. 2003. Through his application dated 11. 8. 2003 tenant has prayed for inter alia redelivery of possession. ( 3 ) THROUGH the application dated 14. 8. 2003, the landlord on the other hand contended that the tenant-petitioner on 7. 8. 2003 in the earlier part of the day willingly handed over the possession of the shop in dispute to him on receiving Rs. 10,000. According to the said application the amount had been received by the tenant on 4. 8. 2003. In the said application it was also stated that on 7. 8. 2003 itself the tenant returned at about 4. 10,000. According to the said application the amount had been received by the tenant on 4. 8. 2003. In the said application it was also stated that on 7. 8. 2003 itself the tenant returned at about 4. 30 p. m. and demanded that either more money must be paid to him or he would again take possession of the shop. Along with application dated 14. 8. 2003 copy of application dated 7. 8. 2003 sent to D. I. G. , Meerut, has been annexed. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of application it has been stated that said application to D. I. G. had been sent by speed post, however, no evidence of sending the application by speed post has been annexed. During arguments heard on 22. 10. 2003 it was admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that the shop was under the seal of the police authorities. Both the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits to the above applications. ( 4 ) THE tenant petitioner contested the release application tooth and nail filed appeal, thereafter he filed the writ petition. In the writ petition on several occasions, the stay order was got extended by the tenant petitioner. On 28. 7. 2003, application for further extension of stay order was filed. Immediately after his possession on 7. 8. 2003, the tenant petitioner filed application for restoration of possession on 11. 8. 2003 (9th and 10th August, 2003, being Saturday and Sunday ). In this scenario it is unbelievable that the tenant, should have willingly handed over the possession. The amount of Rs. 10,000 alleged to have been received by the tenant for voluntarily vacating the shop could even otherwise be recovered by the tenant as two years rent amounting to about Rs. 10,000, had already been awarded by the courts below. The fact that after filing of the application by tenant for restoration of possession on 11. 8. 2003, landlord filed application on 14. 8. 2003, mentioning therein that tenant had willingly vacated the shop further proves that the landlord had forcibly taken possession of the shop in dispute. The application filed by the landlord on 14. 8. 2003 is nothing but a device to steal a march over the tenant. Role of police authorities in the incident is also not above board. The landlord had an eviction order in his favour. The application filed by the landlord on 14. 8. 2003 is nothing but a device to steal a march over the tenant. Role of police authorities in the incident is also not above board. The landlord had an eviction order in his favour. Stay order passed by this Court had expired ; the landlord could take possession only through process of Court under Section 23 of the Act and not otherwise. Even when the State is owner/landlord, it cannot take forcible possession (vide AIR 1989 SC 997 and AIR 2002 SC 1493 ). How the police has put locks over the shop in dispute is also not clear. Neither any proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are pending nor legally any such proceedings can be initiated when the matter is sub-judice or has recently been decided. A decree holder can dispossess a judgment debtor only in the execution proceedings through process of court and not forcibly. If the police assisted the landlord in his nefarious activity, strict action is called for against the guilty police officials. Interference of police in civil matters without the orders of court is highly undesirable and requires to be checked. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, application by the tenant dated 11. 8. 2003 for restoration of possession is allowed. Application of landlord dated 14. 8. 2003, is dismissed. ( 6 ) SENIOR Superintendent of Police, Meerut, is directed to re-deliver the possession of the shop in dispute (part of premises No. 290 Sadar Kabari Bazar Meerut Cantt.) to the tenant petitioner within a week from today. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, is directed to communicate this order to Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, forthwith. Senior Superintendent of Police, meerut, is also directed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of concerned police officials/personnel in the episode and take or suggest action against the guilty. ( 7 ) THE report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, in this regard must be filed before this court within one month. Any delay in compliance with any of the aforesaid two directions on the part of Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, will be taken seriously note of. ( 8 ) LIST the petition for hearing after three months, meanwhile after delivery of possession to tenant, he shall not be evicted until disposal of writ petition. .