- (1.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Phartiyal, Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4.
(2.) PRESENT application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 22nd December, 2006 on the following ground.- "3. Because although under law it is not permissible to delegate the delegated powers but assuming, not admitting, that the powers can be delegated there is no delegation of powers by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Natar to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kashipur to exercise the powers under section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 4. Because in absence of delegation of powers by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur to exercise the powers under section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kashipur is null and void. 5. Because if there was a valid delegation power by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kashipur to exercise the powers under section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 the matter should have been remanded to the lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merit. 6. Because while enhancing the rent of the accommodation in question the Hon'ble Court has not taken into consideration that only a part of the house is under tenancy of the Power Corporatsion. "
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has filed an objection against the said review stating therein to the following effect.- "1. That the application is based on wrong facts and is not legally maintainable. 2. That the above named writ petition was decided after hearing the Counsel for the parties and the Counsel for the review petitioner was also heard on merits of the case. 3. That the matters now raised by the respondent/review petitioner have been dealt with by the Hon'ble Court in the judgment under review. ";