The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions or orders to any person or authority, including a private individual, to redress injustice and restore the status quo ante where arbitrariness has been perpetrated and the conscience of the Court is aroused.

M. N. SHUKLA, J. :- By means of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 27-10-1975 and 28-10-1975 passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively whereby the lock placed by the petitioner over the accommodation alleged to be in his tenancy was opened and he was deprived of possession.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner had been in occupation of shop No. 35, Bahadurganj, Allahabad since the year 1971. After the enactment of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the petitioner applied under S. 14 thereof for his possession being regularised. His case was that he had been in possession with the consent of the landlord and, therefore, his possession should be deemed to be in the capacity of a tenant of such accommodation. In the same application the petitioner had also made a prayer for allotment of the accommodation in his favour. The application was resisted by the landlord respondent No. 1 and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 21-7-1975 gave the benefit of S. 14 to the petitioner. It was expressly found in that order that the accommodation had been let out to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 and that the petitioners possession over the same had commenced in June 1971 and had continued without interruption. It appears that subsequently the landlord, respondent No. 1, approached the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad with a representation that the said accommodation remained locked for eleven months and was no longer occupied by the petitioner, hence, suitable orders may be passed for breaking open the lock and putting respondent No. 1 in possession thereof. Without any notice to the petitioner and behind (his back the Additional District Magistrate passed the impugned order. Pursuant to that order the City Magistrate, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) broke open the lock of the Shop in dispute on 30-1-1975 and handed over possession to the landlord, respondent No. 1.

3. In our opinion the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and without a veneer of legal justification. The counsel for the respondents were unable to refer to any provision of law under which such order may be possibly upheld. It appears to have been passed by the Additional District Magistrate in a most capricious and arbitrary manner. The enormity of the conduct of respondent No. 1 is borne out by the fact that those proceedings were taken surreptitiously, behind the back of the petitioner and by suppression of the order dated 21-7-1975 (Annexure-1) passed under S. 14 of the Act to which both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were parties. It is significant that respondent No. 1 had never challenged the order passed under S. 14 of the Act and the same was allowed to become final between the parties. In these circumstances the impugned orders are wholly unsustainable and must be quashed.

4. The petitioner has, however, also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to restore possession of the shop in dispute to the petitioner. From the facts mentioned above the conclusion cannot be escaped that the petitioner was thrown out of the shop in dispute in an illegal manner and has thereby suffered incalculable hardship. In a case like this the wrong inflicted upon him cannot be adequately redressed until he is put back in possession of the accommodation to which he was fully entitled by virtue of a legal order passed in proceedings under S. 14 of the Act. We have no doubt that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 where it is established that arbitrariness has been perpetrated and the conscience of the Court is aroused, an appropriate direction can always be issued to redress the hardship suffered by the petitioner and restore the status quo ante. The languag