Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. An application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by original landlady -respondent No. 2 Smt. Shashi Bala Jain against the defendant -petitioner was allowed ex -parte on 24.3.1989 by Prescribed Authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar (Rent Control Case No. 2 of 1989). Property in dispute was baithak in which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner -tenant was carrying on retail business. Thereafter petitioner filed restoration application which was registered as Civil Case No. 10 of 1989. Prescribed authority on 15.10.1990 allowed the restoration application and set aside the order dated 24.3.1989. Meanwhile, petitioner had been dispossessed in pursuance of ex -parte order. Against the order dated 15.10.1990 respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 8 of 1990 VIIth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar through judgment an order dated 5.9.1991 allowed the revision. This writ petition directed against the aforesaid Revisional Court's order.
(2.) REVISION was filed under section 115, C.P.C. and under section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against order passed prescribed authority under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 no revision is maintainable under section 115, C.P.C. or under section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Under latter provision revision is maintainable against orders passed under section 16 of the said Act and not section 21. Accordingly, on this ground alone writ petition deserves to be allowed. Revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that landlady -respondent No. 2 before the Revisional Court had stated that accommodation in dispute was no more in existence.
(3.) WHATEVER may be the reason, revision could not be allowed as it was not maintainable.;