Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) Sri Farooq Ahmad has filed this petition against the order of the State Govt. refusing to entertain the revision Under Sec. 7F of the U.P. (Temp). Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Sri Farooq Ahmad had applied for allotment of a building Under Sec. 7(2) of the Act. The DM refused to pass the order requiring the landlord to let out the accommodation to the Petitioner on the finding that the accommodation was neither vacant nor was likely to fall vacant. Against this order the Petitioner went up in revision to the State Govt. The State Govt. took the view that there was neither an order Under Sec. 7(2) requiring any accommodation to be let nor was there any order Under Sec. 7(2) of the Act requiring the accommodation not to be let to any person and refused to entertain the revision on merits.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the State Govt. failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to entertain the revision on merits. According to him the order of the DM tent amounts to an order requiring the landlord 'not to let the accommodation' and as such was revisable Under Sec. 7 -F of the Act. His next contention is that the order refusing to require the landlord to let the accommodation to him was by itself revisable as the word "require" Under Sec. 7 -F includes the word "refusing to require". It is not possible to accept either of these contentions of the learned Counsel.;