Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LIST revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Landlord -respondent No. 3, Dr. Yadevendra Sharma filed a release application under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before R.C. & E.O. Muzaffar Nagar in the form of case No. 2 of 1984. Accommodation in dispute is stated to be a three rooms residential house.
(2.) IN the release application, it was stated that building in dispute was deemed vacant as petitioner, one of the tenants had acquired another property. Petitioner denied the said allegation. R.C. & E.O. accepted the case of the petitioner and after holding that building in dispute was not vacant dismissed the release application by order -dated 13.5.1985. Against the said order landlord -respondent No. 3 filed Rent Control Revision No. 23 of 1985. Revision was decided on 11.2.1992 by I Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Revisional Court's judgment are quoted below: - - 6. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence in revision by the then learned Additional District Judge. The landlord has filed his affidavit, certified copy of the voters list and certified copy of the house tax register. The opposite party has also filed evidence in rebuttal. 7. The landlord has asserted that Harpal has acquired another house No. 212. This Court sitting in revision cannot assess the evidence filed in revision. Under these circumstances, I think that it will be proper if the case is remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for decision after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by both the parties and also allowing opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed. Thereafter the revision was allowed and matter was remanded to R.C. & E.O. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire relevant evidence was already there before R.C. & E.O. hence there was no question of remand. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted.;