Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This is the writ petition against the order dated 17.10.1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 in the revision filed by the petitioner-landiord and the order dated 26.4.99 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 on the application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on the application under Section 16 (5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (The Act) the petition started proceeding for declaration of vacancy under Section 12 of the Act, on the ground that initially one Laxmi Narain was the tenant of the shop in dispute and he has illegally sublet it to the contesting respondent. On this application the vacancy was declared and shop was also released in favour of the petitioner-landlord. Subsequently, the contesting respondents filed an application under Section 16 (5) of the Act on the ground that there is no vacancy in the premises in dispute and they should be heard. This application has been allowed by respondent No. 2 on 26.9.99. Thereafter the petitioner's revision was also dismissed on 8.10.99. The Courts below have held that the contesting respondents claims themselves to be the tenant of the shop in dispute and prima facie there is some evidence to show that their professor-in-interest were tenants and as such the order may be passed on merits after hearing them. It is on this basis that application has been allowed. There is no illegality in the order. The writ petition has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer may decide the case after hearing the contesting respondents. Petition dismissed.;