A.Banerji, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Ill Additional District Judge, Mathura, dated 3-11-1979, dismissing the revision and sustaining the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 22-2-1979, allotting the ground floor of the house in dispute to one Deo Karan, Opposite Party No. 3. The next petitioner in this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 18-1-1979, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the application for review under section 16(5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), as well as against the original order dated 25-4-1978, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring that Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma was not a member of the family of the petitioner tenant, Sri Prem Behari Lal Saxena, and there was deemed vacancy under section 12(l)(b) of the Act.
(2.) In this petition the learned counsel has contended that the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the question of vacancy and deemed vacancy are manifestly erroneous, and the Revisional Authority failed to consider the question in exercise of its power of revision. On the question whether there was a vacancy or not, it was incumbent on the Revisional Authority to have considered the matter fully before concluding that there was a vacancy. The learned counsel contended that this has not been done in the present case. He further contended that there was sufficient material on the record to show that there was no vacancy. The learned counsel has also contended that certain papers had been filed at the stage of review under section 16(5), but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not taken them into consideration, and he thereby committed manifest error of law.
(3.) Neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor does any one appear for respondent No. 3, the allottee.;