JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek J. Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramood Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra and Sri Randheer Jain,learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at the outset at the stage of admission. 3. The facts and circumstances pleaded and as narrated by the parties gives an impression that it is a case of house grabing by none other than one time representative of the people. 4. The frequent change in house number/municipal number of the house has proved handy in facilitating the grabbing of house. 5. Petitioner had successfully occupied the house prima facie without an authority of law but the said action has been nullified by the bold order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 25.8.2004 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 6. Petitioner a former MLA admits that the house in dispute irrespective of its number was originally the property of late Kapoor Chandra Jain, the father of respondent No. 2. 7. Respondent No. 2 claims herself to be the owner and landlord of the above property by inheritance on the death of her father. 8. Petitioner claims it as owner from the times of his ancestors as is evident from paragraph No. 1 of his objections. He also states therein that he had filed Original Suit No. 134 of 2013 wherein he has been granted interim injunction on 27.2.2013 by the Court below. 9. It appears that the property No. 2139, Dampier Nagar, Mathura of late Kapoor Chandra Jain consisted of two portions. One of the portion has four rooms (three rooms and a Kothari) etc. and the other portion, two rooms, a kitchen, latrine and bathroom. The four room portion was under the tenancy of Karan Singh and the two room portion was in the tenancy of one B.P.N. Srivastava. 10. One Ami Adhar Nidar and Smt. Sushila Devi Tomar applied for allotment of four room portion consisting of (3 rooms, a store, kitchen, Varandah, Courtyard and a bathroom) probably by incorrectly describing it to be house No. 64/192 (old number 2139) Dampier Nagar Mathura. 10. One Ami Adhar Nidar and Smt. Sushila Devi Tomar applied for allotment of four room portion consisting of (3 rooms, a store, kitchen, Varandah, Courtyard and a bathroom) probably by incorrectly describing it to be house No. 64/192 (old number 2139) Dampier Nagar Mathura. On the said applications for allotment, the above portion was declared to be vacant vide order dated 9.12.2002 and subsequently vide order dated 1.1.2003 it was allotted in favour of Ami Adhar Nidar. The allotment order so issued described it as house No. 2139, Dampier Nagar, Mathura. 11. The order of vacancy and allotment affected the right of Karan Singh, the tenant in occupation of the said portion. Accordingly, his son Surendra Pratap Singh challenged the vacancy order vide revision No. 1 of 2003. At the same time respondent No. 2 filed revision No. 6 of 2006 against order of declaration of vacancy and allotment. Both the revisions were decided by a common judgment and order dated 6.8.2013. The revisions were allowed and the order of vacancy as well as allotment were set aside. The revisional order was challenged by the allottee Ami Adhar Nidar by filing writ petition No. 58516 of 2012. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.11.2012 with the observation that if the petitioner allottee files an affidavit within 10 days before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and handover its vacant possession to the landlord within six months, the execution shall not proceed. 12. Thus, respondent No. 2 became entitle to receive possession of the above portion. 13. In pursuance of the above, when no undertaking was submitted respondent No. 2 landlord on 27.11.2012 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to ensure delivery of possession of the above portion to her in accordance with Section 18 (3) of the Act in the light of the order of High Court. 14. Since in the allotment application the above portion was described as house No. 64/192, respondent No. 2 in the application also mentioned the same number. 15. On the above application of respondent No. 2 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed for issuing Form ‘D’ for the eviction of the allottee whose possession became authorized with the cancellation of the allotment order. 16. 15. On the above application of respondent No. 2 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed for issuing Form ‘D’ for the eviction of the allottee whose possession became authorized with the cancellation of the allotment order. 16. Petitioner at this stage filed objections purported to be under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC resisting the transfer of possession on the ground that in the garb of the order to deliver possession of portion 64/192 his possession over the other portion 64/191 is being disturbed which he is occupying in his personal capacity. 17. Respondent No. 2 on realizing that the house number of the disputed portion has wrongly been mentioned moved application for correction of form ‘D’ alleging that she is entitle to possession of the four room portion which is numbered as 64/191.The correction application was kept pending. Therefore, he filed writ petition No. 4984 of 2014 for its early disposal. It was disposed of by this Court on 16.7.2014 with the direction to decide the correction application expeditiously within a fixed period of time. 18. It is in pursuance of the above that the correction application of respondent No. 2 has been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 25.8.2014. and the objections of the petitioner have been rejected. He has directed for correcting Form D which was issued on 10.9.2013 so as to ensure delivery of possession of four room portion house No. 64/191 instead of 64/192 Dampier Nagar Mathura. 19. It may not be out of context to mention here that the property owned by late Kapoor Chandra Jain was numbered as 2139 Dampier Nagar, Mathura. The two portions initially numbered as 1/2139 and 1/2139-A were changed to 64/191 and 64/192. Later on, the numbers were again changed to 64/215 and 64/216. 20. 19. It may not be out of context to mention here that the property owned by late Kapoor Chandra Jain was numbered as 2139 Dampier Nagar, Mathura. The two portions initially numbered as 1/2139 and 1/2139-A were changed to 64/191 and 64/192. Later on, the numbers were again changed to 64/215 and 64/216. 20. Sri Ravi Kant has made the following three submissions to assail the order dated 25.8.2014 : (i) petitioner is the owner in occupation of the disputed portion and that his suit for declaration of his rights as owner on the basis of the Will of late Kapoor Chandra Jain is pending consideration, therefore, he cannot be dispossessed from the same; (ii) the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not justified in passing the impugned order without dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner; and (iii) the order impugned amounts to reviewing the order of allotment passed in favour of Ami Adhar Nidar on 1.1.2003 and also the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the application of respondent No. 2. 21. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has clearly held that the disputed property consists of two portions one comprising of four rooms etc. and the other two rooms etc. The four room portion was under tenancy of one Karan Singh. The said portion alone was allotted to Ami Adhar Nidar and the allottee took its possession from him. It is for this reason that son of Karan Singh agitated the matter by filing a revision. The father of respondent No. 2 had previously applied under Section 21 (1) of the Act for the release of the portion under tenancy of Karan Singh which was a four room portion. 22. The two room other portion is under tenancy of one B.P.N Srivastava. 23. The contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the disputed portion for the last 20 years or that his father Umrao Singh was in possession before Karan Singh was not accepted as he had his permanent address of the village and and there was no evidence to prove the date from which he had started living in the disputed house. 24. 24. The petitioner resisted the correction application or as a matter of fact the proceedings to put respondent No. 2 in possession of the disputed portion by claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the said four room portion as his ancestral house. 25. There are no pleadings or any material which can even prima facie show that the aforesaid portion or as a matter of fact any part of the property ever belonged to the petitioners or his ancestors. 26. The petitioner is completely silent about the manner and time in which he came in possession of the same. The petitioner has not even disclosed the date of the Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by late Kapoor Chand Jain. He has not even dared to mention the nature of the suit filed by him or the relief claimed therein. The stand of the petitioner regarding ownership of the said house is ex facie doubtful. He himself is not sure about his rights. At one place he claims it to be his ancestral house and at other as one which has been bequeathed to him under the Will of the previous owner. 27. The petitioner has emphasized on the injunction order alleged to have been passed in Original Suit No. 134 of 2013 instituted by him for declaration of his status as owner of the said house on the basis of the Will of late Kapoor Chand Jain. 28. The injunction alleged to have been granted in the said suit to the petitioner on 27.2.2013 as informed and accepted by the parties was vacated on 20.11.2013 and a writ petition thereof is pending in the High Court with no interim protection. Thus, it is of no use to the petitioner. 29. The mere pendency of the suit does not help the petitioner. First of all there is no specific pleadings in his objections regarding nature of the alleged suit or the relief claimed therein. Secondly on inquiry Sri Ravi Kant accepts that the Will is unregistered. Moreover, there appears to be no logic or justification for late Kapoor Chandra Jain to have executed any Will in favour of the petitioner ignoring his own daughter. The Will as such prima facie appears to be unnatural. Secondly on inquiry Sri Ravi Kant accepts that the Will is unregistered. Moreover, there appears to be no logic or justification for late Kapoor Chandra Jain to have executed any Will in favour of the petitioner ignoring his own daughter. The Will as such prima facie appears to be unnatural. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer or this Court cannot look into the Will and declare the status of the petitioner on its basis. The petitioner is free to get his rights on the basis of above Will, if any, declared by the competent Court and unless his rights are so declared there is no justification to deprive the natural heir of the admitted owner of the property to have its possession. 30. The other objection of the petitioner that the portion in dispute is not actually the portion which is to be put in possession of respondent No. 2 has no substance. Petitioner is trying to take advantage of mis description of the portion on account of the fact that its number was frequently changed and at different times it has been differently described either with the old number or with the number assigned from time to time. 31. The report of the Rent Control Inspector reveals that four room portion bearing number 64/191 (new number 64/215) was the subject-matter of allotment. The said house as per municipal records in the year 2008 is recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 as owner and is in occupation of the petitioner. 32. In view of the above it was held that allotment proceedings were in respect of four room portion of house No. 64/191 now renumbered as 64/215 and the respondent No. 2 is entitle to possession thereof as per the order of the High Court. The petitioner has no right to continue in its possession. 33. The evidence on record makes it clear that the dispute all through had been regarding the four room portion which was in occupancy of the tenant Karan Singh. The allottee had taken possession of it from him and therefore after the allotment order was set aside, the said portion alone was liable to be restored to the owner and landlord respondent No. 2 under Section 18 (3) of the Act. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of any mis description of the property. 34. The allottee had taken possession of it from him and therefore after the allotment order was set aside, the said portion alone was liable to be restored to the owner and landlord respondent No. 2 under Section 18 (3) of the Act. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of any mis description of the property. 34. As observed earlier, there is no material or evidence which may even prima facie show that petitioner is the owner of any part of the above property much less the four room portion or the two room portion of it. It appears that the petitioner took unauthorized possession from the alottee Ami Adhar Nidar after his allotment was revoked and the order was upheld by the high Court. 35. The argument of Sri Ravi Kant that the objections of the petitioner have not been considered before allowing the correction application is misconceived and is not acceptable. His objections have been dealt with as above. 36. Lastly, respondent No. 2 applied for the correction of Form ‘D’. She has not applied or sought review of any order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The allotment order dated 1.1.2003 in favour of Ami Adhar Nidar is in respect of part of house No. 2139 Dampier Nagar, Mathura consisting of four room portion. Therefore, any correction in Form ‘D’ so as to put respondent No. 2 in possession of the said portion which has now been renumbered by describing the present number would not amount to review of the order of the allotment. It is simply an order correcting the description of the disputed portion in Form ‘D’ which was issued on 10.9.2013 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 37. There is no question of reviewing an order which has ceased to exist. 38. The order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer dated 28.10.2013 is an order of refusal to review its earlier order dated 10.9.2013. The said order directs for issuance of form ‘D’. Respondent No. 2 by the present application has not applied for review of any of them but only for correction of the description of the disputed portion in Form ‘D’. The Rent control and Eviction Officer in exercise of its inherent power as also by virtue of Section 34 of the Act read with Section 151 and 152 CPC has the power to correct the same. The Rent control and Eviction Officer in exercise of its inherent power as also by virtue of Section 34 of the Act read with Section 151 and 152 CPC has the power to correct the same. Any correction therein does not amount to reviewing the order dated 28.10.2013 or the order dated 1.1.2003. 39. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no error on part of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in permitting correction in the description of the disputed premises in Form ‘D’ issued by it and rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 40. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Order 21 CPC have not been made applicable to proceedings under the Act which is clear from simple reading of Section 34 of the Act with Rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder.Therefore, the objections purported to have been filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were not even maintainable in law. Nonetheless they have been considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in passing the impugned order. 41. This apart, as stated earlier respondent No. 2 is entitle to possession over four room portion of the property 2139, Dampier Nagar, Mathura which belonged to her late father. The petitioner is prima facie not the owner who is entitle to possession of any part of it no matter with whatever number it may be described. Therefore, the Court will not come forward to protect his possession more particularly when the allotment of the portion of the house has been revoked/rescinded and the allottee who was put in possession thereof has been ousted in which circumstance the owner ie. respondent No. 2 alone is entitle to its possession until and unless petitioner is able to prove his ownership in appropriate proceedings. 42. Petitioner is before the Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction which is exercised for the advancement of justice and to check the misuse and abuse of the process of law. The Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not normally interferes in the orders of the Courts below for mere illegality unless the order infringe upon the valuable right of the party and tends to cause any injustice to any of the parties. 43. The Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not normally interferes in the orders of the Courts below for mere illegality unless the order infringe upon the valuable right of the party and tends to cause any injustice to any of the parties. 43. The petitioner has failed so far to prove any right over any part of the above property as a whole and as such is not entitle to any relief by this Court either in law or equity. 44. The endeavour of the Court is always to advance substantial justice. 45. The Court having found as of fact as by the authority below that the dispute was only regarding the four room portion of the property house No. 2139, Dampier Nagar, Mathura which was given separate house No. 64/191 and subsequently 64/215 and the said portion is in occupation of the petitioner, the possession of which has to be restored under Section 18 (3) of the Act to the owner/landlord respondent No. 3 does not consider it proper and appropriate to interfere in the matter. 46. The writ petition as such is held to be devoid of merit. 47. The petitioner is obviously in unauthorized use and occupation of the disputed premises since the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the High Court ie. 7.11.2012 till date. Respondent No. 2 has suffered loss and damage for its use in the above period. Therefore, she is entitle to costs in the shape of damages at a token amount of Rs. 1000/- per month ie. amounting to Rs. 16,000/- 48. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 16,000/- as above to be payable by petitioner within a month failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. —————