SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) - Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In spite of the repeated calls/ the Counsel for the respondents is not present. Therefore, there is no option with the Court except to hear the matter and to decide it.
(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petition­ers being landlord has filed the present writ petition against an order by which the premises in dispute which was released in favour of the petitioners by the prescribed authority on a revision filed by the sitting tenant, the Revisional Court by the order impugned dated 7.11.2003, Annexure-11 to the writ petition has allowed the revision and set aside the order of release which was in favour of the petitioners. It appears that on an application made by one Jagdish Singh S/o Ram Swaroop made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for declaring the vacancy of the aforesaid premises and District Magistrate directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector after due inspection of the shop in question has given a report on 17.11.1999 that one Ekhlaq Ahmad was found in possession of the shop in dispute and has told that he is in possession of the shop in question from 1979 and he is paying Rs. 50/- per month. The size of the shop in question was 18 x 16 sq. ft. He has also told to Rent Control Inspector that there is no order of allotment in his favour. On the basis of the report submitted by the Rent Control Inspector, the vacancy was declared to the effect that the respondents No. 4 and 5 were not tenant and in the month of August, 1999, Iqbal Ahmad has sublet the said premises in dispute to Ekhlaq Ahmad. The order of vacancy was challenged by Ekhlaq Ahmad before the Revisional Court under section 18 of the Act No. XIII of 1972. The said revision was dismissed and the Writ Petition (No. 9594 of 2002 was dismissed on 31.1.2007) filed by respondent No. 5, meaning thereby the order of vacancy has become final. The petitioners filed an application after declaration of the vacancy that the said premises be released in favour of the petitioners as the vacancy has already been declared. The District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 9.8.2002 was pleased to release the said applica­tion holding therein that respondent No. 5 is not an authorized tenant and he has failed to produce any valid order of allotment, therefore, the vacancy was declared and now the petitioners want that the accommodation in question be released in their favour. Therefore, vide its order dated 9.8.2002 after record­ing a finding that the shop in question is in bad condition and, therefore, it may be released in favour of the petitioner-landlord. The respondent No. 5 ag­grieved by the order of release filed a revision before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide its judgment and order dated 7.11.2003 has allowed the revision and set aside the order of release as well as the order of declaring the vacancy.
(3.) SRI Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that once the order of vacancy has become final up to the stage of the High Court, it was not open to the Revisional Court to set aside the said order dated 3.8.2001. Further submission has been made that after declaring the vacancy, the prospective allottee, unauthorised occupant or any person has no right to con­test the proceeding of release of the accommodation. It is only between the District Magistrate and the landlord and no third person has any right to con­test the proceeding. Therefore, the revision filed by the respondents itself was not maintainable and should have been dismissed. But the Revisional Court has erred in law apparent on the face of the record that while considering the question of release, the vacancy order passed by the District Magistrate has also been set aside.;