JUDGMENT: Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.-This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment & order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the Additional District Magistrate/R.C. & E.O., Nainital. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the 'nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to restore the possession in favour of the petitioner and release the household goods of the petitioner which are in possession of Smt. Champa Bisht in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner-Smt. Shail Kumari has alleged in this petition that she is the tenant in the disputed house since 1971. A Civil Suit No.35/1993 was filed by the Catholic Diocess of Bareilly before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Nainital against the petitioner and three others for eviction and recovery of rent and the said suit was decreed on 21.10.1995. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred a Civil Appeal No.89/1995 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital and the said appeal was ultimately dismissed on 7.7.1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the Second Appeal No.902/1997 before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the said appeal was admitted. The operation of the judgment passed by the appellate court and the civil judge was stayed vide its order dated 03.12.1997. After creation of the Uttaranchal State, the said appeal has been transferred to this Court and a new number has been given to the aforesaid appeal' by the High Court of Uttaranchal. Second Appeal No.977/2001 (Dew number) is still pending before this Court. During the pendency of this appeal, a report was submitted by the Inspector. Rent Control, Nainital alleging therein that the Catholic Church is the owner of the said property and Smt. Shail Kumari is the tenant in the disputed house. She had not been residing in the said premises since long and the Inspector requested the R.C. & E.O. to sent the notices to the owner as well as to Smt. Shail Kumari under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Pursuant to the said report, the notices were issued to the parties and St. Francis Home Catholic Church has given an endorsement that the property does not belong to them and the notices were affixed outside her house. Pursuant to the said report, the notices were issued to the parties and St. Francis Home Catholic Church has given an endorsement that the property does not belong to them and the notices were affixed outside her house. As; such, the service was effected upon the parties. No objections were filed inspite of service of notice during the stipulated time. The R.C. & E.O. declared vacancy of the said premises and the copy of which was sent to both the parties. The notices of declaring the premises to be vacant by R.C. & E.O. were affixed outside the disputed premises and as such the service of notice was found sufficient by R.C. & E.O. 3. As soon as the house was declared vacant, an application for allotment was received from the respondent No.3-Smt. Champa Bisht and the said house was allotted to her on 07.04.2004. Thereafter, when the said. premises were not vacated by the occupant, the order under form-D was issued to the police and the possession of the said premises was handed over to the respondent No.3 by the police in pursuance of the order under Form-D. It is further revealed from the record that the articles, which were found inside the said premises, were also given in the supradagi of respondent No.3. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner challenged the vacancy order passed on 26.03.2004 before this Court and she prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.03.2004 and the orders dated 7.4.2004 and 24.4.2004 passed in pursuant of the said aforesaid vacancy order. While disposing of the petition, this Court had observed that the vacancy being sine-qua-non for allotment or release, the revisional court shall decide the question of vacancy alongwith order impugned i.e. allotment order and the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to file a revision before the competent court. S. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge under section 18 of Act No. 13 of 1972 in which the petitioner had challenged allotment order passed by the R.C. & E.O. The learned District Judge while disposing of the petition directed the R.C. & E.O. to give the specific findings on the following points: 6. After the remand order, the R.C. & E.O. proceeded with the matter. After the remand order, the R.C. & E.O. proceeded with the matter. Meanwhile, an application was filed under section 18 sub-clause (3) of Act No. 13 of 1972 by the petitioner on 16.11.2004 with the prayer that the allotment order passed by the RC. & E.O. has been rescinded and the respondent No. 3 may be evicted from the said premises and its possession may be restored to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has also filed an application before the RC. & EO. under section 10 C.P.C. on 15.4.2004 that there is a dispute regarding the ownership between the St. Francis Home Catholic Church and the petitioner and proceedings of this case may be stayed till the pendency of the second appeal. The RC. & EO. disposed of both the applications as well as the matter of allotment and vacancy by a common order dated 11.05.2005. The RC & EO. had held in his order that there is sufficient service of notices upon the parties and the notices were effected upon the petitioner by way of affixation and as such there was sufficient service of notice of the vacancy upon the petitioner. It was further held by the RC & EO. that there is a dispute between the 5t. Francis Home Catholic Church and the petitioner with regard to the disputed property and the matter is pending before the High Court in the second appeal. It was also observed that both the courts had held that the disputed property belongs to the Church and the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. The second appeal is pending before the High Court and there is a stay order which is still persisting in between the parties. He also rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 18(3) of the Act No.132 of 1972. The petitioner was declared as "Out Going Tenant" by the RC & E.O. As such, the RC & EO. had not found it just and proper to restore the possession under section 18(3) of the Rent Control Act. He further held that since the dispute with regard to the ownership is pending before the High Court, hence the R.C & EO. is not competent to give decision on that point. had not found it just and proper to restore the possession under section 18(3) of the Rent Control Act. He further held that since the dispute with regard to the ownership is pending before the High Court, hence the R.C & EO. is not competent to give decision on that point. At last, he had observed that section 10 C.P.C. is not applicable and stayed the proceedings of the said case under section 151 CP.C read with 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972. " 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the RC & EO. has erred in holding that the application of the petitioner filed under section" 18(3) is not tenable. It was further contended that the RC & EO. cannot enter into the controversy as to who is the owner. The RC & E.O. had only to see as to who was the landlord and who was the tenant at the time of handing over the possession to the respondent No.3. It was further pointed out that the second appeal is pending since long, and the stay order for eviction passed by the High Court is in favour of the petitioner. It was further pointed out that section 18(3) clearly provides if the allotment order had been rescinded, the RC & E.O. will restore the possession to the person who was occupying the said premises at the time of allotment of the said premises. It was further pointed out that the said allotment order was set aside by the learned District Judge vide its order dated 01.11.2004 and the RC & EO. was directed to re-hear the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It was also contended that the allotment order made in favour of the respondent No.3 have not been subsisting and accordingly the application under section 18(3) of the Act was maintainable and the RC & EO. would have restored the possession to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that in section 14(3) it has been provided that if the allotment order had been rescinded, the RC. & Ea." shall restore the possession to the person, who is entitled to occupy the premises. would have restored the possession to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that in section 14(3) it has been provided that if the allotment order had been rescinded, the RC. & Ea." shall restore the possession to the person, who is entitled to occupy the premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the R.C & E.O. declared vacancy on 26.03.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was not residing in the said premises since long and she occasionally visits the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner had not challenged the vacancy before this Court and the vacancy order has already attained the finality. The said vacancy order was challenged before the High Court and the petition was dismissed with the observations that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to raise this point before the District Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 further contended that the petitioner had only challenged the allotment order dated 07.04.2004 and she had not challenged the order dated 26.03.2004. It was further contended that the possession of the petitioner over the said premises was found illegal and she could not-retain the possession when the vacancy was declared. It was further contended on behalf of the respondent No.3 that according to section 13 the petitioner has ceased to occupy the said premises. She could not retain these premises without a valid allotment order passed in her favour. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that in view of the above contentions the possession of the said premises cannot be restored back to the petitioner. It can only be restored to the landlord because there is a dispute between the landlord and the petitioner with regard to the ownership of the said property. As such, the possession could not be restored to the landlord also and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The provisions of section 18(3) contains a provision which is in the form of restitution as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the possession could not be restored to the landlord also and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The provisions of section 18(3) contains a provision which is in the form of restitution as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. It lays down that the District Magistrate on being satisfied on an application made to him in that behalf that an order made under sections 16 or 19 has been rescinded or cancelled, he shall place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and should be exercised whenever the justice of the case so demands. Such a jurisdiction is embodied in section 18(3) of the Act. Whenever an application under section 18(3) of the Act is made and the District Magistrate is satisfied that an order made under section 16 has been rescinded or cancelled, he is under a bounden duty to relegate back the parties to the position which they had occupied prior to the making of order under section 16 which was subsequently cancelled or rescinded. The object of this provision is clearly to enable the authority to place a party, who has been prejudicially affected by an order which has been varied or reversed in his favour, in the same position as he would have occupied if the order had not been made at all. The District Judge vide its order dated 01.11.2004 has rescinded the allotment order. It was bounden duty of the R.C. & E.O. to restore back the possession to the party from whose possession it was taken. Apart this, the Catholic Church has obtained a decree in its favour against the petitioner for the eviction of the said premises and the operation of the order had been stayed. Meaning thereby, his eviction had been stayed by the appellate court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also challenged that the order passed by the District Judge is only a remand order. Meaning thereby, his eviction had been stayed by the appellate court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also challenged that the order passed by the District Judge is only a remand order. He pointed out that the order passed by the District Judge had not rescinded the order passed by the R.C. & E.O. As such, the allotment order is subsisting one and the application under section 18(3) is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the contention and contended that after cancellation of the said allotment order the learned District Judge has sent the matter for a de novo decision. The plain reading of sub-section (2) makes it clear that the revising authority may either confirm the final order made under section 16 or section 19 or rescind or cancel the same. The power of remanding the case is an additional one which is conferred on the revising authority. The revisional court may remand the case to the District Magistrate for a finding on a particular issue without rescinding or canceling the final order or it may remand the case for a de-novo decision after setting aside the final order, as the circumstances of the case may require. It is clear from perusal of the order dated 01.11.2005 that the District Judge remanded that case for hearing of the matter in de-novo. When the matter came up after the remand, there existed no order of allotment in favour of the respondent No.3. The learned District Judge while remanding the matter allowed the petition. Meaning thereby, he had quashed the order dated 07.04.2004. Thus, I am of the view that the order in favour of the respondent No.3 passed by the RC. & EO. had been quashed by the learned District Judge. 10. It was pointed out that the vacancy declared by the RC. & EO. had not been challenged before the revisional court. Order of the High Court dated 12.08.2004 reveals that the vacancy is the sine-quo-non for allotment or release and the revisional court was directed to decide the question of vacancy alongwith the allotment order. The vacancy order passed by the R.C. & EO. had merged in the order of the allotment dated 07.04.2004. Order of the High Court dated 12.08.2004 reveals that the vacancy is the sine-quo-non for allotment or release and the revisional court was directed to decide the question of vacancy alongwith the allotment order. The vacancy order passed by the R.C. & EO. had merged in the order of the allotment dated 07.04.2004. The said order has been challenged before the District Judge and as such the entire matter was heard by the District Judge and thereafter he remanded the case with specific directions inter-alia that the R.C. & E.O. will consider at the time of hearing of the parties as to whether proper notices were issued to the petitioner before declaring the vacancy. As such, the order itself reveals that the learned District Judge had considered the point of vacancy. R.C. & E. O. had examined that aspect in the impugned judgment also. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot challenge the vacancy order passed by the R.C. & E.O. 11. It was further pointed out that when the vacancy has been declared and the petitioner had been found in illegal possession then she could not get the possession back in view of section 13 of the Act. This Act seeks also to regulate sub-lettings by tenants of buildings in respect of a portion thereof. Therefore, where a tenant inducts a sub-tenant or a licensee or assignee in the whole or part of the building without an allotment in favour of such a person, the occupation of that person will be unauthorized being against the provision of this section. The Legislature has not only banned the occupation of a building or part by any person on behalf of the tenant or landlord but also by the landlord thereof without first obtaining an order of release in his favour. This position emerges out of the wordings of this section. Thus, the contention of the respondent No.3 regarding that the petitioner has no right to retain the said premises has no force. The R.C. & EO. has also observed that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the St. Francis Home Catho1ic Church. The judgment which has been passed by the court below was stayed by this Court. Meaning thereby) it is pending in the High Court and still she had not been evicted in pursuance of the judgment passed by the court below. has also observed that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the St. Francis Home Catho1ic Church. The judgment which has been passed by the court below was stayed by this Court. Meaning thereby) it is pending in the High Court and still she had not been evicted in pursuance of the judgment passed by the court below. Thus, she had right to hold the possession of the said premises. The R.C. & E.O. has erred in holding that there is a dispute between the parties and as such the premises cannot be handed over to the petitioner. The findings are erroneous and interference is required in this regard. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said premises are exempted from the provisions of Rent Control Act. This plea was not taken before the court below. This plea can only be taken when the further proceedings of the premises for allotment are taken by the parties before the court below. The R.C. & E.O. have only to see as to who is landlord and as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable in the premises or not. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of view that the petitioner is entitled to get back the possession of the said premises under section 18(3) of the Act No XIII of 1972. The RC. &. E.O. also held that the said proceedings cannot be proceeded further in view of the pendency of the second appeal before the High Court. The second appeal is in between the petitioner and the Church. The RC. & E.O. erred in holding that the proceedings cannot be decided without disposal of the second appeal pending before the High Court. The provisions of Act No XIII of 1972 are applicable in the premise which comes within the purview of the Act. 14. In view of the above, the order dated 7.4.2004 passed by the RC. & E.O. is quashed. The matter is remitted back with the directions to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The R.C. & E.O. will dispose of the restitution application filed under section 18(3) in view of the above observations. 15. The petition is disposed of accordingly.