JUDGMENT

S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order passed under Sec. 7-B of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated the 3rd November 1960 and 27th November 1962.

2. The material facts are these. The petitioner is the landlord of the accommodation. This was in the tenancy of opposite party No. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 7-B against opposite party No. 2 on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for full three years i.e. 2-7-1959 to 2-7-1962 totalling Rs. 2,880/- and prayed for his ejectment from the aforesaid premises. A registered notice as required by Sec. 7-B (3) of the Act was sent and the same was served on opposite party No. 2 on the 10th July 1962. On the 14th July 1962, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application pointing out to the court that Rs. 500/- as rent had already been paid; that a further sum of Rs. 500/- was being deposited as balance of rent and further that he proposed to file an objection. "But as it is necessary to file security before filing the objection, I do hereby file a security for Rs. 2,400/-. I, therefore, request you to kindly accept the security and permit me to file the objection." On the 16th the Munsif passed the following order:-

"Security is accepted. Objection and receipts for deposits are to be filed. Put up for orders after ten days."

3. Thereafter, on the 24th July 1962, the petitioner filed an objection to the acceptance of this security on the ground that in the affidavit along with the surety bond filed by Qudrat Ullah he had mentioned that he was standing surety for Ram Chandra s/o Harish Chandra instead of Lal Chandra (the tenant) which was the real name of the petitioner, and further that the affidavit purports to be sworn by Qudrat Ullah but actually it had been signed as Qudrat Khan. On these objections the court directed the opposite party No. 2 to produce the title deeds of the surety, on 25-8-1962. The statutory period of 15 days for compliance with the notice under Sec. 7-B (3) was to expire on the 26th July 1962. Therefore, upto that date the learned Munsif had not withdrawn his earlier order of acceptance of the surety and there was no opportunity for the opposite party to have filed another security within the period of limitation. It was only on the Ist October 1962 that the learned /Munsif decided that the security bond which was furnished by the opposite party was not a legal security and was, therefore, not valid. Thereafter, on 3-11-1962 the opposite party asked for permission to file another security bond. This no doubt was some what belated, but nevertheless permission was granted. It was pointed out by the very Munsif who had passed the earlier order dated 1-10-1962 holding the earlier security bond to be invalid:

"The order sheet dated 16-7-1962 shows that the security was accepted and the opposite partys objection was entertained. Hence in the circumstances the objection of the opposite party cannot be thrown out and it is a fit case in which opposite party may be allowed to file sufficient security by 19-11-1962."

4. On the 5th of November 1962, the petitioner filed an application requiring the Munsif to recall his order dated 3-11-1962. This application was rejected by an order dated 27-11-1962, where it was reiterated:

"The aforesaid order of my learned predecessor clearly reveals that the security of the opposite party was accepted on 16-7-1962. Once the security is accepted it is done so as sufficient. Afterwards I held on 1-10-1962 that the security filed is not sufficient, that order may be uncalled for but even then to safeguard the interest of the applicant landlord another security in place of the previous security was taken. It is not a fresh security and no period of filing the security has been extended. The court has always the inherent power to set aside its own orders which are passed by mistake."

5. Th