- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) AS desired by learned Counsel for the parties this petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage. ' By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26-12-1998 passed by the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer, declaring vacancy of the premises in dispute, order dated 31-12-1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the Respondent No. 3, order dated 10-7-2000 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short the Act, and the order dated 17-8-2000 passed by the revisional authority dis missing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10-7-2000. The dispute relates to the building No. 3/5 Vishnupuri Kanpur for short 'building in dispute'. The building in dispute was owned by one Sri Raj Kishore Agarwal, Respondent No. 3. It is stated that the petitioner has been residing in the said building since 1974. Proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the Act were initially filed by one Aushutosh Kumar. It was on 26-12-1998 the building in question was declared vacant. The Respondent No. 3 owner of the building, filed a release application of the said building under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act. The said application was al lowed by the judgment and order dated 31-12-1998 and the building in question was released in favour of the Respondent No. 3. Challenging the validity of the said order, Writ Petition No. 47 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by the judgment and order dated 25-5-2000 with the direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (5) of the Act. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to decide the said application. After hearing the parties, application was ultimately rejected by the order dated 10-7-2000. Challenging the validity of the said order the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below under Section 18 of the Act. The Court below has taken the view that the revision was not maintainable. Having recorded the said finding the revision was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 17-8-2000 hence the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Respondent No. 1 has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by holding that the revision against the order passed under Section 16 (5) of the Act was legally not maintainable and in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. According to him, judgment and order passed by the Court below was therefore, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the con testing respondent fairly conceded that the view taken by the Court below under Sec tion 16 (5) of the Act was not maintainable and was not correct. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon the decision of this Court in the cases of Baij Nath v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1982 ARC 274, Surinder v. District Judge, Dehradun and others, 1982 ARC 799, Ravindra Pratap Singh v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1997 ARC (1) 264,1997 (1) JCLR 627 (All) Law Publisher, Allahabad v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1997 (2) ARC304; 1997 (2) JCLR 900 (All ). In all the. above noted decisions this Court consis tently has taken a view that the order passed under Section 16 (5) of the Act is revisable under Section 18 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and decisions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17-8-2000 is hereby quashed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order communicated to him. Till the revision is decided parties shall maintain the status quo as on today. Petition allowed. .;