ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - Sri Farooq Ahmad has filed this petition against the order of the State Govt. refusing to entertain the revision u/s 7F of the U.P. (Temp). Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Sri Farooq Ahmad had applied for allotment of a building u/s 7(2) of the Act. The DM refused to pass the order requiring the landlord to let out the accommodation to the Petitioner on the finding that the accommodation was neither vacant nor was likely to fall vacant. Against this order the Petitioner went up in revision to the State Govt. The State Govt. took the view that there was neither an order u/s 7(2) requiring any accommodation to be let nor was there any order u/s 7(2) of the Act requiring the accommodation not to be let to any person and refused to entertain the revision on merits. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the State Govt. failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to entertain the revision on merits. According to him the order of the DM tent amounts to an order requiring the landlord 'not to let the accommodation' and as such was revisable u/s 7-F of the Act. His next contention is that the order refusing to require the landlord to let the accommodation to him was by itself revisable as the word "require" u/s 7-F includes the word "refusing to require". It is not possible to accept either of these contentions of the learned Counsel. 4. Section 7(2) of the Act contemplates two types of orders: one requiring the landlord to let an accommodation to any person and the other requiring the landlord not to let the accommodation to any person. In either case the order has to be directed to the landlord. If the order directs him not to let out an accommodation, his right to let the accommodation is taken away. The present order does not by itself take away the right of the landlord to let out the accommodation. The present order does not also require the landlord to let out the accommodation to any person. If the order directs him not to let out an accommodation, his right to let the accommodation is taken away. The present order does not by itself take away the right of the landlord to let out the accommodation. The present order does not also require the landlord to let out the accommodation to any person. The order of the DM cannot, therefore, be deemed to be an order requiring the landlord either to let or not to let the accommodation within the meaning of Section 7(2) and accordingly no revision would be maintainable u/s 7-F of the Act. 5. There is no warrant for reading the word 'require' used in Section 7-F as 'require or refuse to require'. In Section 7-F both the words 'granting and refusing' have been used when the revision is allowed against an order passed u/s 3 of the Act; but when the order sought to be revised is one u/s 7 of the Act the two contingencies have not teen mentioned and only the order requiring an accommodation to be let has been made specifically revisable. The legislative intent appears to provide a revision only in respect of orders by which a property right of a person may be affected and not otherwise. When an order is passed directing a landlord to let or not to let an accommodation to any person, his right to property is affected. No legal right of a person is, however, affected where no such order is parsed and the application for a direction to the landlord to let the accommodation to the Applicant is rejected. It cannot thus be held that the word 'require' in Section 7-F includes in the words 'refuse to require'. The order of the State Govt. cannot, therefore, be held to suffer from any error of law. 6. Learned Counsel then attacked the order of the RC and EO and submitted that the same may be quashed. The order is however, based on the finding recorded by the RC and EO that the accommodation was not vacant. This finding is not vitiated by any error of law and is based on an appreciation of evidence produced before him. The RC and EO found that the landlord was in occupation of the building and his goods which had been pledged with the Allahabad Bank were kept in the building. This finding is not vitiated by any error of law and is based on an appreciation of evidence produced before him. The RC and EO found that the landlord was in occupation of the building and his goods which had been pledged with the Allahabad Bank were kept in the building. On this finding of fact the RC and EO was right in holding that the accommodation was not vacant and in refusing to make the allotment in favour of the Petitioner. The order also does not in the circumstances of the case, calls for any interference as the RC and EO has recorded a finding that the Petitioner made out no case for taking on lease the building as he had no subsisting licence for running a cinema. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.