R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. It appears that the building in question was allotted in favour of respondent No. 2 by order dated 20.08.1979. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioners filed a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short, "the Act". The said revision was ultimately allowed on 18.03.1980 and the allotment order dated 20.8.1979 was set aside by the revisional authority. Order dated 18.03.1980 has become final. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application for delivery of the possession over the building in question. The said application was allowed on 22.03.1980 and the respondent No. 2 was directed to restore back possession to the petitioners. In pursuance of the order dated 22.03.1980, possession was delivered to the petitioners on 24.03.1980. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for setting aside the order dated 22.03.1980 and for delivery of possession over the building in question to him. On the said application, the respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.1980 setting aside the order dated 22.03.1980 and directing the petitioner to restore back possession to the respondent No. 2, hence the present petition.
(2.) INSPITE of notice issued by this Court having been served upon the respondent No. 2, nobody has turned up on behalf of the said respondent. It was on 15.04.1980 that this petition was admitted and the following order was passed by this Court: - - Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 25.03.1980 shall remain stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that possession over the building in question is still with the petitioners. In these circumstances, the respondent No. 2 therefore, should have knowledge of the pendency of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order dated 18.03.1980 allowing the revision and setting aside the allotment order has become final. The respondent No. 1, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 25.03.1980. Learned Standing Counsel, after perusing the material on the record, also conceded that the impugned order was apparently illegal and without jurisdiction. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed by judgment and order dated 18.03.1980, which has Become final, therefore, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 25.03.1980. He could not ignore the order passed by the revisional Court and set aside the order dated 22.03.1980 which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 18.03.1980. In view of these facts, this petition is liable to be allowed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 25.03.1980 is hereby quashed. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, there will be no order as to cost. ;