JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. This is the tenant's writ petition for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Moradabad (Prescribed Authority for short) refusing to consolidate the Case No. 43 of 1996 and P.A. Case No. 8 of 1998 pending under Section 21, of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short).
2. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute. The P. A. Case No. 43 of 1996 was filed by one Indkhab Alam claiming himself to be the landlord of the premises. Subsequently his uncle Mohd. Khalid filed another case, namely. P.A. Case No. 8 of 1998, against the petitioner for the same premises claiming himself to be the landlord. Petitioner filed an application dated 5.11.1998' under Rule 22 (e) for consolidation of these two cases. This application has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. He says application by different landlords against same tenant cannot be consolidated under Rule 22 (e). Hence this writ petition.
3. It is true that under Rule 22 (e), gives power to consolidate cases filed by one landlord against different tenants. This may help in assessing the bona fide need and comparative hardship. The actual accommodation with the landlord may be known. The Rule 22 (e), does not empower the Prescribed Authority to consolidate the cases filed by different landlords against the same tenant. But this does not mean that Prescribed Authority in no other case can consolidate the cases. All Courts and Tribunals have inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of law ; devise its own procedure subject to Statutory prohibition. So has the authorities and the Courts under the Act. The Authorities and the Courts have inherent power not because of any legislation but because of their nature and constitution. They have power to pass order in the interest of justice or follow procedure unless prohibited' by law. Rule 22 (f) specifically confers inherent powers to make any order for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the authority concern. The Act does not prohibit consolidation of two cases against same tenant in respect of same premises by different landlords. The only limitation is--it should be in interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
4. The present application has been dismissed on the ground that Rule 22 (e) does not empower the Prescribed Authority to consolidate the cases by different landlord against same tenant. The Prescribed Authority has not applied its mind whether these cases should be consolidated under inherent powers or not? May be it was because no such argument was raised or as the application was headed as under Section 34, read with Rule 22 (e) ; the Prescribed Authority was misled. The fault is not his but that of the petitioner. He should have invited the attention of the Prescribed Authority to this aspect. Should proceeding be held up here or liberty be granted to petitioner to file fresh application? I think the later course is better. The dismissal of application under Section 22 (e), does not bar the filing of fresh application for the consolidation of cases under inherent powers. It is settled law that the Authorities/Courts have greater power to review its interlocutory orders. This is so held in a full bench decision of our Court. It is for Prescribed Authority to consider whether it is in interest of justice to consolidate the case or not under inherent powers. The petitioner may apply again or challenge this order in appeal against final judgment as he is advised. There is no necessity to consider the validity of the order at this stage.
5. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed.