JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain,learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.10.2012 passed by R.C. And E.O./A.D.M. Civil Supply Agra in old case No. 72 of 1985 Rajendra Singh and others v. Roman Catholic Diocess of Agra Limited issuing recovery certificate in form G under Rule 24(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 for recovery of Rs. 8,12,000/- as arrears of enhanced rent from l7.3.1986 to 6.3.2011 after adjusting Rs. 5,80,000/- earlier deposited pursuant to an order passed by this Court challenging the basic order of enhancement of rent which had been passed under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The impugned order was passed on the application of the landlord respondents filed on 13.6.2011. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claiming to be the landlords of the property in dispute and further claiming that petitioner was its tenant filed application under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 29-A (2) and (5) are quoted below: (“2). This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant, with the landlord’s consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof. (5). The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land, and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in sub-section (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of this section, whichever is later.” 4. The initial order was passed by the R.C. And E.O. On 7.3.1986 determining the rent of the property in dispute @ of 58,000/- per year. Against the said order petitioner filed writ petition No. 10867 of 1986. In the said writ petition stay order was passed on 8.7.1986 staying the operation challenged therein on the condition that tenant continued to deposit rent @ of Rs. 12000/- per year. The said stay order was modified on 15.9.1987 and instead of Rs. Against the said order petitioner filed writ petition No. 10867 of 1986. In the said writ petition stay order was passed on 8.7.1986 staying the operation challenged therein on the condition that tenant continued to deposit rent @ of Rs. 12000/- per year. The said stay order was modified on 15.9.1987 and instead of Rs. 12000/- per year, tenant petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 29,000/- per year. The writ petition was allowed on 3.12.2007. Till then under interim order petitioner had deposited Rs. 5,80,000/-. Against the order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition S.L.P. was filed in the Supreme Court which was converted into Civil appeal No. 539 of 2009. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on 5.11.2009, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment and order of R.C. and E.O. dated 7.3.1986. In the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment of the Supreme Court it was observed as follows: “We make it clear that since proceedings under Section 29-A(5) of the Act are summary proceedings, this will not prevent respondent No. 1 from getting its rights adjudicated in a civil suit in accordance with law, if so advised. If such a suit is filed, the Court concerned shall decide the same on its own merits expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this order or by the High Court or by the Rent Controller.” 5. R.C. and E.O. in his impugned order dated 26.10.2012 held that it had jurisdiction to issue the certificate and from 7.3.1986 till 6.3.2011 an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- was payable out of which Rs. 5,80,000/- had already been deposited and withdrawn by the landlord hence recovery certificate for Rs. 8,70,000/- was issued. 6. Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act is quoted below: “24. Certificate of recovery (Section 34 (1) (1)Where in any proceedings under the Act, any sum on account of costs or otherwise is awarded to any party by the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate or Revising Authority, such party may apply to the authority concerned to proceed under rule. Certificate of recovery (Section 34 (1) (1)Where in any proceedings under the Act, any sum on account of costs or otherwise is awarded to any party by the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate or Revising Authority, such party may apply to the authority concerned to proceed under rule. (2) Upon the receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate or Revising authority, as the case may be, shall prepare and issue a certificate of recovery in Form G. (3) An application for the execution of the certificate of recovery may then be presented to the Court of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. After the execution application is disposed of, the executing Court shall certify the result to the authority issuing the certificate of recovery.” 7. Above Rule has been framed under Section 34. Section 34 (3) of the Act is quoted below: “Where any costs or other sum of money awarded under this Act by the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority or the appellate or revisional authority remains unpaid, he or it may issue a certificate, of recovery in respect thereof in the prescribed form, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may aply to the Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. IX of 1887) for recovery of the amount specified in the certificate. Such Court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for payment of money made by itself in a suit.” 8. Under the liberty granted by the Supreme Court petitioner has also filed O.S. No. 325 of 2011 before Civil Judge (S.D.) which at present is pending before Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 5 Agra. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that determination of rent is sort of declaration and in case the said rent is not paid only such proceedings which are available to the land lord in case of non payment of rent by any tenant may be pursued by the landlord. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that determination of rent is sort of declaration and in case the said rent is not paid only such proceedings which are available to the land lord in case of non payment of rent by any tenant may be pursued by the landlord. 10. Learned counsel for the landlord respondent has argued that under Rule 24(1) the words used are “any sum on account of costs or otherwise” and Section 34(3) uses the words “cost or other sum of money” hence the section as well as the Rule include enhanced rent also. 11. Learned counsel for the landlords respondents has further argued that if it was a disputed question regarding payment/non-payment of the enhanced rent then it would have been necessary for the landlord to file suit for recovery of rent, however, in the instant case the petitioner tenant is questioning the very liability to pay the rent as enhanced by R.C. and E.O. hence R.C. and E.O. has got full jurisdiction to issue recovery certificate. It has also been argued that the suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically referred to the communication sent by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to Registrar General of this Court the District Judge Agra and R.C. and E.O. communicating the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 5.11.2009. The precise language of the communication by Registrar (Judicial) Supreme Court of India dated 16.11.2009 is as follows: “In continuation of this Registry’s letter of even number dated the 9th day of November,2009, I am directed to transmit herewith for necessary action a certified copy of the Decree dated the 5th day of November,2009 of the Supreme Court in the said appeal” 13. Another communication by Additional Registrar Supreme Court has also been placed on record in which relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment dated 5.11.2009 has been quoted and in the end it is mentioned as follows: “And this Court doth further order that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.” 14. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that these are the usual communications pursuant to every order passed by the Supreme Court and it cannot be read as empowering R.C. and E.O. to issue recovery certificate in execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that these are the usual communications pursuant to every order passed by the Supreme Court and it cannot be read as empowering R.C. and E.O. to issue recovery certificate in execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in Section 34 (3) the words used are ‘costs’ or other sum of money awarded under this Act which included only cost or similar amounts but not rent/enhanced rent. 16. Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating the argument contended that words or other sum of money awarded under this Act used in Section 34(3) and similar words used in Rule 24 may include apart from cost the amount of two years rent which is directed to be paid by the landlord to the tenant under second proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act while allowing release application in respect of Commercial accommodation or the amount payable under Section 27(2) of the Act which permits the tenant to get an amenity restored at his cost and thereafter recover such costs from the landlord. However, reference to Section 27(2) is irrelevant as under the said Section cost may be recovered by deduction from the rent. Reference is also made to Section 16(6) under which special cost not exceeding than Rs. 500/- may be awarded. 17. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel for the landlord respondents has also referred to order 13 Rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules 1966 which is quoted below: “The decree passed or order made by the Court in every appeal, and any order for costs in connection with the proceedings therein, shall be transmitted by the Registrar to the Court or Tribunal from which the appeal was brought, and steps for the enforcement of such decree or order shall be taken in that Court or Tribunal in the way prescribed by law.” 18. In my opinion formal communication letters issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court and order 13 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 do not authorise R.C. and E.O. to execute its order which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in any such manner which he is not otherwise entitled. 19. In my opinion formal communication letters issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court and order 13 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 do not authorise R.C. and E.O. to execute its order which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in any such manner which he is not otherwise entitled. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred Article 144 of the Constitution which mandates that all authorities Civil and Judicial in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. However, this Article is not attracted to the facts of the case. Supreme Court simply restored the order of R.C. and E.O. It did not say further that R.C. and E.O. should recover the amount. 20. Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has argued that in case suit for recovery of arrears of rent is filed by the landlord, the petitioner can question the validity of the order of the R.C. and E.O. enhancing the rent in the said suit under the permission granted by the Supreme Court. I do not propose to decide this question in this writ petition. In the suit which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order of R.C. and E.O. enhancing the rent no stay/temporary injunction application has been filed. I also do not propose to consider in this writ petition the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the said suit is not maintainable. 21. In my opinion neither under Section 34(3) nor under Rule 24 enhanced rent under Section 29-A(5) or under any other provision of the Act can be recovered by issuing recovery certificate. Such enhancement is in the nature of declaration only and just as declaratory decree cannot be executed but it can be made basis of a subsequent claim similarly order of enhancement of rent under Section 29 A(5) of the Act or any other provision of the Act cannot be executed. It can be made basis for subsequent action for recovery of arrears of rent or eviction. It can be made basis for subsequent action for recovery of arrears of rent or eviction. If the argument of learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then it would mean that month after month or year after year application for issuance of such certificate may be filed before R.C. and E.O. and if tenant asserts that he has paid the rent then this dispute would also have to be decided by the R.C. and E.O. Section 34(3) and Rule 24 cannot be bifurcated and read as empowering R.C. and E.O. to issue recovery certificate in cases of undisputed default but not in case default is disputed. If certificate is issued, J.S.C.C. has got no power to judge its correctness it has to execute the same. Section 34(3) and Rule 24 do not contain any provision for issuing notice or adjudication of dispute. 22. Accordingly, disputed question of default cannot be decided under Section 34(3) or Rule 24. Similarly if disputed question cannot be decided then in case of undisputed default also the provision cannot be invoked because there is nothing in the provision permitting such bifurcation. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited a Division Bench authority of this Court in Sheo Kishan Das v. The Prescribed Authority, 1980 ARC 369. In para 7 of the said authority it has been held that even though power of restitution under Section 144 C.P.C. has not specifically been conferred on the Prescribed authority nevertheless prescribed authority is a quasi judicial body hence power of restitution can be exercised by the Prescribed authority. In my opinion the said authority does not lay down any such principle that all the powers of Civil Court under C.P.C. can be exercised by the authorities under the Rent Control Act. Even otherwise civil Court cannot execute a declaratory decree. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance upon Section 29-A(6) and has argued that just as in pending suit rent may be enhanced by J.S.C.C. and in that very suit tenant would be liable to pay the same hence if it is enhanced under Section 29-A(5) by R.C. and E.O., R.C. and E.O. is also entitled to recover the same by issuing certificate. I do not agree with this argument. Both the sub-sections (5) and (6) deal with different situations. 25. The controversy involved in this case may be looked from another angle. I do not agree with this argument. Both the sub-sections (5) and (6) deal with different situations. 25. The controversy involved in this case may be looked from another angle. Suppose there is a dispute about rate of rent in between landlord and tenant and tenant does not pay the rent landlord may file a suit for recovery of rent as asserted by him. The Court where the suit is filed will determine the rate of rent and pass decree for realisation of the rent determined by him. However, landlord may also choose to file a suit only for declaration regarding rate of rent. If such a suit is filed and decreed by the Civil Court holding that the rate of rent is as alleged by the landlord, then in execution of such decree the determined amount cannot be recovered. Landlord will have to file separate suit for recovery of rent. The only thing is that in the subsequent suit the rate determined in the earlier declaratory suit would be treated to be binding and tenant would not be heard to say that the actual rate of rent is less then rate of rent as alleged by the landlord. 26. Reference has also been made to one of my judgements in Lakhpat Singh v. Yashoda Devi, 2006(1) AWC 69 , directing recovery of rent under Rule 24(3). However, in the said case there was specific direction issued by the High Court hence R.C. & E.O. was obliged to comply with that. In the instant case Supreme Court did not issue any such directions. 27. An authority of Uttaranchal High Court in State Bank of India v. Kundan Singh, AIR 2008 Uttarakhand 53, has also been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. The main thing decided in the said writ petition was that rent enhanced under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the said case the enhanced rent was sought to be recovered like arrears of land revenue. However, I do not agree with the observation made in the said authority that rent enhanced under Section 21(8) of the Act may be recovered under Section 34(3) of the Act. In the said case the enhanced rent was sought to be recovered like arrears of land revenue. However, I do not agree with the observation made in the said authority that rent enhanced under Section 21(8) of the Act may be recovered under Section 34(3) of the Act. Section 21(8) is quoted below: “Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised education institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable: Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of application: Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement. 28. The last argument of learned counsel for landlords respondent that under Section 20(2) of the Act suit for eviction may be filed on the ground of default but suit for recovery of rent alone cannot be filed is not acceptable. Suit for recovery of rent can be filed under common law like all other suits. Section 20 of the Act only places certain restrictions upon the right of the landlord to evict the tenant. It does not provide remedy to seek eviction to the landlord. Such remedy is already there under common law. Even if Rent control act does not apply landlord can very well seek eviction of the tenant under common law. Section 20 merely curtails/restricts the right. 29. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order issuing certificate of recovery is completely without jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore allowed, impugned order is set aside. ——————