Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.1994, whereby respondent No. 1 has remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider as to whether the petitioner is an heir and legal representative of Dr. V. Singh, the deceased tenant, as provided under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The facts in brief are that Dr. V. Singh was a tenant of property No. 11/7/6, Pipal Mandi, Dehradun. Sri Anil Kumar Nagalia is the landlord of the said property. Dr. V. Singh died on 2.1.1991. The landlord -respondent No. 2 intimated the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that Dr. V. Singh has died and the property in question has become vacant as there is no heir and legal representative of Dr. V. Singh. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report. The petitioner claimed herself to be family member of Dr. V. Singh. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not accept her contention and declared the vacancy by order dated 21.2.1991. The landlord filed an application for release of the disputed premises and by order dated 13.3.1991 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the property. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order before the District Judge. The District Judge, vide order dated 25.3.1991 allowed the revision and set aside the orders dated 21.2.1991 and 13.3.1991 and remanded the case back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the direction to decide the question as to whether the petitioner is the heir of the deceased tenant Dr. V. Singh or not. After remand the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased tenant, vide order dated 17.7.1991. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision against the said order. The revision has been allowed by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 24.11.1994 and the case has been remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider as to whether the petitioner is legal heir of the deceased tenant Dr. V. Singh and if so, under what provision of law the petitioner would be an heir.
(2.) THE impugned order dated 24.11.1994 only directs the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to determine the status of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This question requires consideration by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The order of remand passed by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any manifest error of law. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.;