The Executing Court has the jurisdiction to restore possession to a party under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it must consider the relevant factors and assign reasons for its decision.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This revision application arises out of an order dated 25-4-1988 passed by the Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur in execution Case No. 13/6 of 1988, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court directed the petitioner (decree holder in the Execution Case) to give vacate possession of the suit premises in favour of the judgment-debtor by 2-5-1988.

2. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner who was the land-lord of the tenant opposite party, filed a suit for eviction on the sole ground of personal necessity. According to toe petitioner, he requited the suit premises for the purpose of providing accommodation to his son Manjoor Hassan to start a business. The said suit was heard in terms of the procedure laid down under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

4. By a judgment, dated 13th January, 1988, the aforementioned suit was decreed, whereby and where under the learned trial court held that the petitioner has a bona fide requirement in respect of a premises of suit and thereby directed the tenant-opposite party to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of judgment failing which the plaintiff shall have right to get the suit premises vacates through the process of Court. The petitioner filed an execution case for executing the aforementioned decree in the court of Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur on 10-3-1988. The said decree has since been executed.

5. In the meanwhile, however, the opposite party filed a civil revision application in this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 319 of 1988 and listed before one of the Hon ble Judges of this Court on 7-3-1988, on which date this Court is issued notice to the petitioner in the admission matter and further directed that, meanwhile, the operation of the said judgment was remain stayed. The petitioner has asserted that the opposite party did not intimate the Execution Court about the order of interim stay passed by this Court in the aforementioned Civil Revision No. 319 of 1988, which was communicated, allegedly for the first time on 22-3-1988. But, in the meanwhile, the decree in the aforementioned suit was executed on 17-3-1988 when delivery of possession of the suit premises was effected in favor of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 22-3-1988 and 24-3-1988 the opposite party filed two applications before the Executing Court to the effect that delivery of possession effected, although an interim order of stay was passed by this Court on 7-3-1988. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said application on 4-1988 alleging therein that the Executing Court had passed the order of delivery of possession without having any knowledge of the order of stay passed by this Court.

6. Thereafter, the opposite party filed an application before this Court in the aforementioned Civil Revision No. 319 of 1988 praying therein restoration of possession of the suit premises and by an order, dated 14-4-1988, this Court disposed of the said application, inter alia, observing there in as follows:

In the instant case, an application has been filed, it is the common ground, before the Executing Court which has fixed some date for passing appropriate orders after hearing the parties. The petitioner will be well advised to make this submission before the execution court for appropriate orders. In the case at the present stage nothing can be done in his favor. If ultimately an order adverse to him is passed by the executing court, he may challenge it in proper proceeding. When such challenge is made, the matter shall be disposed of on its own merits,

The said order dated 14-41988, as contained in Annexure- to this application, the petitioner has asserted that in the meanwhile his son has already commenced business in Sukha Bidi Patta after the petitioner obtained the delivery of possession in respect of the premises.

7. By the impugned order that learned court below purportedly to have held th