J.N. Dubey, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17 -2 -1989 of the VII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing the revision filed by Balraj against the order dated 20 -8 -1988 of the City Magistrate/Prescribed Authority rejecting his application moved under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have neither put in appearance nor filed any counter -affidavit inspite of service.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel for tie petitioner contended that the revisional court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in upsetting the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. It is true that under Section 18 of the Act the revisional court has not been empowered to correct the mistake of facts or law and, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. However, considering the facts that the order of the trial court is also not happily worded and appears to have been passed without considering the entire evidence on record I do not think it proper to set aside the order of remand. In my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the trial court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law taking into consideration the materials on record and ignoring the various observations made by the revisional court on merit of the cost. Considering the facts of the case I think some direction should also be issued to the trial court for expeditious hearing of the case.
(3.) I accordingly direct the respondent No. 5 the City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar to decide the case No. 71 of 1987 Void Prakash Bhargava v. Balraj within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in the light of the observations made above.;