1. This civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vidisha in Case No. 2/A-90/07-08.

2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that Dr. Chiranjilal, predecessor of respondents No.1 to 6 submitted an application under section 10 (4) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for fixation of standard rent against the revisionist in respect of the premises occupied by the latter. The Rent Controlling Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha vide his order dated 26.8.1989 made the fixation @ Rs. 75/- p.m. per room and Rs. 50/p.m. for Varanda. Revisionist, who was in occupation of three rooms and one Varanda was held liable to pay the rent in all to the tune of Rs. 275/- p.m. with effect from 16.8.1984. The Rent Controlling Authority issued a letter to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I Vidisha for execution of the said order. Execution proceeding No. 5 x 86 x 87 x 90 was initiated by the said Court. Said proceedings were stayed in Civil Revision No. 465/2001 by this Court. It was finally held by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2003 that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by the RCA. The Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Vidisha while dismissing the execution case in pursuance of this Court's order dated 3.1.2003 granted a liberty vide his order dated 3.2.2003 to the respondent to move an appropriate application before the RCA for recovery of the arrears of rent as per earlier order dated 26.8.1989 passed by the RCA. Pursuant thereto, the respondent submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for execution of the order dated 26.8.1989. Learned SDO passed an order on 16.1.2008 directing thereby the revisionist to deposit the rent or submit receipts in case if he has already deposited the rent. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 16.1.2008 as without jurisdiction and against the law.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the order of fixation of rent passed under section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not executable. The afores2id has been countered on behalf of the respondents on the ground that by virtue of the powers available to the Rent Controlling Authority under section 35 of the said Act, the Rent Controlling Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Vidisha has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is warranted in the present revision.

4. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

5. It may be seen that Rent Controlling Authority vide his earlier order' dated 26.8.1989 made fixation of rent at the rate of Rs. 275/- p.m. in respect of the premises in question. The revisionist was found liable to pay rent, in all, to the tune of Rs. 275/- p.m. with effect from 16.8.1984. A letter was issued by the Rent Controlling Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha to the Civil Judge, Class- II, Vidisha for execution of the said order. Execution proceedings were initiated by the Civil Court vide Case No. 5 x 86 x 87 x 90. These proceedings were challenged in Civil Revision No. 465/2001 before this Court. This Court allowed revision application vide order dated 3.1.2003, holding that the order fixing the standard rent cannot be executed as a decree.

The Civil Court was found to have acted without jurisdiction. I may prefer to quote paragraph 4 of the said order :

"4. A bare reading of the said section will make it clear that the interpretation made by the learned Judge of the said section is on the face of it erroneous, firstly because section 35 applies to the orders passed under Chapter III-A of the Act, which deals with the application for ejectment. Moreover, the said section provides that the orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority are executable as a decree of the civil Court. No procedure is laid down under the Act, which empowers the Civil Court to execute the orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The only r