Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.02.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar allowing Rent Revision No. 05 of 2001 filed by respondent no. 4 and setting aside Rent Control and Eviction Officer's (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") order dated 30.08.2000 and remanding the matter to RCEO for deciding afresh.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no occasion for setting aside RCEO's order for the reason that petitioner was the landlord and this issue having been decided by RCEO, in absence of any challenge by respondent no. 3, would not have been allowed to be re-agitated before RCEO by remanding the case at the instance of respondent no. 4 who had no legal or otherwise right to challenge petitioner's claim for releasing of accommodation in question, in his favour. He contended that on the basis of rent receipts etc., the petitioner was found to be the landlord as defined under Section 3(j) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and, therefore, there was no occasion for Revisional Court to remand the matter.
(3.) In my view the Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of RCEO but I have certain further/other reasons for taking the same view.;