The U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is a self-contained code, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, except as provided under Section 34 read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act. The order appointing or refusing to appoint a commission is an interlocutory order and not revisable.

Pankaj Mithal, J.

Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner is the landlady of the disputed premises. Her application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the order has been affirmed by the appellate court as well as by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 10.07.08 passed in Writ Petition No.28538 of 2008 wherein the tenant Lal Chandra, the father of respondent No.2 was allowed a years' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he furnishes an undertaking on affidavit in the court below. The order of the High Court was allowed to attend finality as it was not challenged any further. An undertaking was furnished but even then the premises in dispute was not vacated.

3. Petitioner moved application under Section 23 of the Act for seeking possession of the premises in dispute pursuant to the order of release passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It has been registered as Execution Case No. 2 of 2008.

4. In the said execution proceedings, petitioner applied for appointment of a commission. The application was rejected by the prescribed authority whereupon respondent No.2 preferred revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Small Cause Court Act) and the same has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2011.

5. The primary objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision against the order rejecting the application for appointment of commission was not maintainable. Secondly, no revision could have been filed against the order of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act.

6. The proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act have attained finality and the premises in dispute stand released in favour of the petitioner. The said order has to be implemented under Section 23 of the Act by the prescribed authority.

7. It is settled that the above Act is a self contained code in itself. All the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act except for as provided under Section 34 read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act.

8. The aforesaid provision does not provide for applying the provisions of Order 26 C.P.C. regarding the issuance of the commission to proceedings under the Act.

9. In view of above, the application for issuing commission under Order 26 C.P.C. was not maintainable though the prescribed authority is not precluded to direct for appointment of commission in exercise of its inherent power vested in it by virtue of Section 151 C.P.C. which is applicable to the proceedings before it.

10. The Act does not contemplate any revision against such an order and the provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. have not been made applicable to orders passed under the Act.

11. It is equally settled that the order appointing or issuing commission or refusing to appoint commission is an interlocutory order and the same is not revisable. This has been reiterated in 2007 (102) RD 258 Ram Ishwar Vs. Laxmi Narain.

12. The aforesaid proceedings are not under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 and the order refusing to appoint commission by no stretch of imagination can said to be one passed under the said Act so as to permit its revision under Section 25 of it.

13. It has also come on record that earlier twice or thrice commission was issued and the reports thereof are on record. Therefore, there is justification for issuing repeated commissions for the same purpose.

14. Thus, there being no independent provision under the Act for the revision of such an order, the court below manifestly erred in passing the impugned order in exercise of revisional power so as to set aside the order of the prescri