Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14 -2 -1990 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The premises No. 105/727 -A, Shree Nagar, Kanpur was released in favour of the respondent under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by an order dated 1 -7 -1987 after declaring the' vacancy by an order dated 12th June, 1987. The premises was thereafter released in favour of the landlady. Both the orders declaring vacancy, as also the order releasing the premises in favour of the landlady were challenged under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge.
(2.) THE order declaring vacancy dated 12th July, 1987 was not challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was however, challenged in a proceeding under Section 48 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The revision petition was allowed by the then Additional District Judge and the release order dated 1 -7 -1987 has been set aside. While setting aside the release order the only ground indicated by the learned Tenth Additional District Judge was that in fact there was no vacancy, meaning thereby he only considered the order declaring the vacancy and treated the release order to be not in accordance with law and on that basis alone the order of release was set aside. In my opinion the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, the release order cannot be considered by the revisional authority. The order dated 12 -6 -1987 has become final. The revision application was not considered on merits independently. Applying the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in a case reported in Ganpat Rai and others v. Additional District Magistrate and others, : 1985 (11) ALR 423 the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14 -2 -1990 is set aside. However, the Additional District Judge, Kanpur is directed to consider the revision against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, releasing the disputed premises in favour of landlady. Learned District Judge will also consider as to whether this revision is maintainable on behalf of respondent No. 3 or not. There shall be no order as to costs. ;