JUDGMENT S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a writ petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the State Government under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, hereinafter called the Act, dated the 15th of March 1963 and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated the 9th of May, 1961. 2. The facts leading up to this petition are these. The petitioner along with his two brothers and his cousin Karam Singh was the tenant of house No. 35 (old) Shahganj, Allahabad, One of the brothers was transferred and, therefore, left Allahabad. Karam Singh built another accommodation for occupation by his family. Opposite party No. 3 applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 13th of November, 1959, for the allotment of the accommodation in dispute alleging that the premises had fallen vacant. On enquiry by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it was found that the said accommodation was not vacant, and, therefore, on 18-12-1959 ordered that the said application be filed as premises in question was not vacant. Opposite party No. 3 again applied for allotment of the premises, but this time the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an allotment order dated the 28th of December, 1959 without any notice to the petitioner or to Karam Singh. or the other occupants of the accommodation. Thereupon, opposite party No. 3 applied for possession and a notice under Section 7-A (1) of the Act was issued to Karam Singh who submitted that he along with his brother including the petitioner was in possession and the house was not vacant. Being satisfied with this reply, the allotment order dated the 28th December, 1958 was cancelled by an order dated the 3rd of March, 1960. On the 22nd of March, 1960, the petitioner again applied for allotment alleging that Karam Singh, the old tenant, had vacated the house in question. A report was called from the Inspector by an order dated the 24th of March, 1960. The Inspector submitted a detailed report running into two pages. On the 22nd of March, 1960, the petitioner again applied for allotment alleging that Karam Singh, the old tenant, had vacated the house in question. A report was called from the Inspector by an order dated the 24th of March, 1960. The Inspector submitted a detailed report running into two pages. The penultimate paragraph of this report reads: "I made spot enquiry and while narrating the entire facts reported on 20-2-1960 that while Kararn Singh had been occupying -the house since 1948 he was residing somewhere else for the past 6-7 months and the house was under the occupation of Sri Ram Singh, a relation of Karam Singh. On the result of the above report allotment order dated 28-12-1959 was cancelled on 3-3-1960." 3. In other words the report was that the position even on 7-4-1960 was the same as when the earlier report was made and the allotment order dated the 28th December, 1959 was cancelled. A week later another report was called for from the Inspector by an order dated the 14th of April, 1960. This time a cryptic and un detailed report is made in these words "I have verified the contentions of Sri Bhola Nath Gupta and found the same correct. Sri Karam Singh, previous occupier of house No. 35 is residing in his own house 234 Tula Rain for the last 8-9 months." This report is dated the 26th April, 1960. This time it will be noticed that the Inspector made no mention of the petitioner Ram Singh who was a relation of Karam Singh being an occupant of the premises. It is quite obvious that the second report was given under some outside influence and does not represent the correct state of affairs. The least that could have been expected from the Inspector was that he should have made some attempt to explain away the report given by him only three weeks earlier. Accepting the second report of the Inspector as true without further ado the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to hold that the house was vacant and allotted it to the opposite party No. 3 on the 28th of April, 1960. The formal allotment order was passed on the 2nd of May, 1960. 4. On the 10th of May, 1960 a notice was again issued under Section 7-A of the Act to the petitioner. The formal allotment order was passed on the 2nd of May, 1960. 4. On the 10th of May, 1960 a notice was again issued under Section 7-A of the Act to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection on the 26th May, 1960, alleging that the house was never vacant and it could not have been allotted. On the 17th of June, 1960, the petitioner's objection was rejected and notice under Section 7-A (2) of the Act was issued. Against that order a revision to the Commissioner was filed on the 22nd of June, 1960 who stayed the operation of the order under Section 7-A (2) of the Act. On the 19th December, 1960 when the revision came up for hearing, the Commissioner smelling a rat remanded the case to the lower court. The operative portion of the said order reads: "I find that the lower court has not given any reasons for disbelieving the need of the revisionist. Accordingly his order suffers from an impropriety and is set aside. The case is remanded back to the lower court for considering the needs of both parties and then passing orders according to law." It was also noticed by the Commissioner that the revision was only against the order under Section 7-A(2)1 oi the Act passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. When the matter went back, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice to Karam Singh on 25th January, 1961. Karam Singh responded to this notice by an application dated the 7th February, 1961 wherein he asserted that the family was joint and that Ram Singh, petitioner was a member of his family and that the accommodation never fell vacant and was not likely to fall vacant, that Karam Singh and petitioner both used to pay rent and taxes to the Municipal Board etc. Without adverting to any of these matters the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 9th of May, 1961, again issued an order under Section 7-A(2) of the Act observing that "the case had been heard and considered. Without adverting to any of these matters the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 9th of May, 1961, again issued an order under Section 7-A(2) of the Act observing that "the case had been heard and considered. The allotment order of Sri Bhola nath has rightly been passed and shall stand so you are hereby again directed under Section 7-A(2) of the Rent Control Act to vacate the premises by 11-5-1961 and deliver the possession to the allottee failing which you will be liable to be evicted from the aforesaid premises under Section 7-A(3). The accommodation is allotted to Bhola Nath, 242 Shahganj, Allahabad." 5. Again, the petitioner for the second time went up in revision against the aforesaid order passed under Section 7-A (2) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not seriously prepared to comply with the directions given in his earlier order dated, the 9th December 1960, and had still persisted in giving no .reasons for the re-issuing of the notice under Section 7-A(2). of the Act and after setting out the history of the case quite rightly and properly came to the conclusion that "The lower Court has not entered into any discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties in the order passed on 6-5-1961 when the case was remanded to him. This cannot be treated as a proper order in the eye of law. In my view, this is a material irregularity and accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the lower court's order set aside." This order was passed on the 3rd October, 1961. Against this order which set aside the order passed under Sec, 7-A (2) of the Act, the opposite party No. 3 went up in revision under Section 7-E of the Act to the State Government. The State Government allowed the revision by its order dated the 15th March, 1963. The petitioner, has, therefore, now come to this Court against this order dated the 15th March, 1963, passed by the State Government. 6. The short question which arises is whether a revision lay to the State Government against an order of the Commissioner setting aside an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7-A(2) of the Act. The petitioner, has, therefore, now come to this Court against this order dated the 15th March, 1963, passed by the State Government. 6. The short question which arises is whether a revision lay to the State Government against an order of the Commissioner setting aside an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7-A(2) of the Act. Under Section 7-F, the powers of the State Government so far as interference against an order under Section 7-1 of the Act are severely restricted. All orders passed under Section 7-A are not revisable. It is only one particular order which has been made the subject of revision and that is an order "directing a person to vacate any accommodation" under Section 7-A of the Act. In other words, if the order which is the subject matter of revision does not contain a direction to any person to vacate an accommodation under Section 7-A of the Act such in order will not be revisable by the Late Government. In the present case the order of the Commissioner was merely to cancel the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7-A (2) of the Act. Therefore, under the order of the Commissioner no one had been directed to vacate any accommodation under Sec 7-A of the Act. That order, manifestly, could not be made the subject matter of a revision. The order passed by the State Government, therefore, was prima facie, without jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the order the Commissioner set aside not only the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7-A(2) of the Act but also the allotment order in favour of opposite party No. 3, and, therefore, the revision would be competent as it would be the order of the Commissioner which would in fact be a direction to the landlord not to let the accommodation to any person under Section 7 of the Act. This contention has no force. It is not possible to read into the order of the Commissioner anything more than it actually decided. The revision filed before him was only against an order under Section 7-A of the Act and not against an order under Section 7 of the Act. This contention has no force. It is not possible to read into the order of the Commissioner anything more than it actually decided. The revision filed before him was only against an order under Section 7-A of the Act and not against an order under Section 7 of the Act. The mere mention of any extraneous matters in the order passed under Section 7-A (2) of the Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will not, when that order is set aside by the missioner affect any of these extraneous matters. What was set aside by the Commissioner was the order under Section 7-A(2) of the Act which meant that the petitioner will not be called upon to vacate the accommodation. There is no warrant for evading into the order of the Com missioner anything more than what the revisionist had prayed for and The allotment order in favour of opposite party No. 3 was not cancel. led but the order was that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises under Section 7-A (2) of the Act. The legislature has in its wisdom restricted the revisional powers of the State Government in this respect and there can be no jurisdiction for enlarging it by reading Into the relevant provision words which are not there. I am supported in this view by a decision of this Court in Shri Jagdish Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1955 A.L.J. 846 8. For the reasons given above, the petition is allowed with costs. The order of the, - State Government is directed quashed and that of the Commissioner restored.