Ajay Kumar Yog, J. - (1.) MAHENDRA Anand, claiming to be prospective allottee, has filed present petition challenging judgment/order dated October 30, 1998, whereby Respondent No. 1 VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowed Rent Revision No. 4 of 1998 (Smt. Kanti Devi Saxena v. ACM) and order dated 15.10.1997 (Annexure XI) and order dated 24.1.1998 (Annexure X) have been set aside and Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Delegated Authority has been directed to decide in accordance with law, release application filed by the land -lady (Respondent No. 2). The only question urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected Review Petition under Section 16(5), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XIII of 1972), (for short called 'Act') vide judgment and order dated 24.1.1998 (Annexure 10) holding that review petition was not maintainable in law and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 rejecting release application (Annexure XI) could not be said to have merged in the said order dated 24.1.1998. The petitioner submits that the Revision No. 4 of 1998 was filed only against order dated 24th January, 1998 as mentioned by the Revisional Court in its order dated 29.1.1998 (Annexure XI). The petitioner further submits that the Revisional Court committed a manifest error apparent on the face of record while, in as much as in the end of its judgment dated 29.1.1998 (Annexure XI), said authority observed "since the review petition is based against the order dated 15.10.1997, therefore, this revision is maintainable." Certified copy of memo of Revision 1998 placed before this court shows that revision was filed against order dated 24.1.1998 but in the prayer clause relief sought was that the court may be pleased to "set aside the order dated 24.1.1998 as well as order dated 15.10.1997".
(2.) FROM the record, it is evident that Respondent No. 2 challenged the orders in question promptly. Review Petition was filed within five days of the rejecting of the release application. Thereafter, the landlady has been constantly pursuing her remedy. It cannot be said that landlady did not acquired or slept over. She has been prosecuting and pursuing for remedy, as advised before the concerned authorities and the courts for vindicating of her rights. Evidently the learned counsel, representing the landlady before the Delegated Authority and the Revisional Court, proceeded on the assumption that by challenging the order dated 24.1.1998 which had come into existence as a consequence of original order dated 15.10.1997, it was enough to challenge the order rejecting review application dated 24.1.1998, but still claimed for quashing of both the orders dated 15.10.1997 and dated 24.1.1998. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Contesting Respondent No. 2 is duly served and represented' by Shri A.C. Tewari, Advocate. Registered Notice sent to Respondent No. 3 have been received back and the another one sent to Respondent No. 4 has been received back as undelivered from the record.
(3.) A statement at the Bar has been made that none of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 contested before the courts below. In view of the above, I do not feel the necessity of Respondents No. 3 and 4 being served before deciding the petition finally.;