Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2008 by which vacancy of the premises in dispute was declared by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord has pointed out that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer passed an order under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord. He submits that in such circumstances the petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has an equal efficacious statutory alternative remedy of filing a Revision under section 18 of the Act wherein he can challenge both the orders passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Achal Misra v. Rama Shankar Singh and others, 2005 (1) ARC 877 and the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Samuel Kempstor v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer/Additional city Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar and another, 2007 (2) ARC 888 , the petitioner had an option of either challenging the order declaring vacancy by filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by challenging the same in the Revision under Section 18 of the Act along with final order of release and, therefore, in such circumstances when the petitioner has opted for filing of this Writ Petition prior to the passing of the order of release, the petitioner should not asked to avail of the alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act.;