JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - One Shiv Sahai was the tenant of the disputed shop. On his death applications were made for allotment of the shop. The Rent Control inspector inspected the shop with a view to ascertain vacancy. He reported that at the time of the inspection the shop was locked and the only son of late Shiv Sahai was employed in Pratapgarh. The District Supply Officer notified the vacancy. Smt. Basanti Devi, widow of Shiv Sahai, filed an application asserting that she was carrying on the business in the disputed shop with the help of her servant after the death of her husband and that the inspection carried out by the Inspector was done on Monday, a day on which the market establishment remained closed and that accounted for the wrong report that the shop was kept closed. The District Supply Officer allotted the shop to Ramesh Chand finding his claim to the shop most pressing. Smt. Basanti Devi moved another application on 12-8-1974 again asserting that she was in actual occupation of the shop and that the inspection made on a closed day resulted in a wrong report that the shop was kept closed. She prayed for review of the allotment order in favour of Ramesh Chand. It appears that the District Supply Officer himself made an inspection on 28-8-1974 and noticed Smt Basanti Devi running the shop with the aid of a servant. He also found that Ramesh Chand worked on another shop in the same locality. However, the case was transferred from the file of the District Supply Officer to the file of the Executive Magistrate, Bijnor, at the instance of one Naresh Chand, who was an applicant for allotment of the shop. The Executive Magistrate by his order dated 19-5-1975 dismissed the application of Smt. Basanti Devi. Primarily on the reasoning that in the earlier application also Smt. Basanti Devi had asserted that the shop was not actually vacant and the Inspector's report could not be relied upon as the inspection was made on a closed day. He took the view that the District Supply Officer must have passed the order of allotment after considering the stand taken by Smt. Basanti Devi and as no new ground had been set forth in support of the review application, it deserved to be rejected. He took the view that the District Supply Officer must have passed the order of allotment after considering the stand taken by Smt. Basanti Devi and as no new ground had been set forth in support of the review application, it deserved to be rejected. Smt. Basanti Devi preferred an appeal in which she challenged the order of allotment as well as the order rejecting her review applications. The learned District Judge rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal directed against the order of allotment was barred by time and that no appeal lay against the order dismissing the review application. The correctness of the view taken by the learned District Judge has been challenged in this petition. 2. Sub-section (5) of section 16 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that where the landlord or any other person claiming to be a lawful occupant of the building or any part thereof comprised in the allotment or release order satisfies the District Magistrate that such order was not made in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of subsection (1), the District Magistrate may review the order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the widow of the previous tenant Shiv Sahai and entitled to succeed him in the tenancy rights. She claimed to be in lawful occupation of the premises after the death of her husband. She was thus competent to make an application for review on the ground that the shop had not in fact fallen vacant and was not open to allotment. The Executive Magistrate rejected her application for review. Section 18 provided for an appeal by any aggrieved person against an order under section 16. It could not be successfully contended that the order on the review application was not an order under section 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972. That being so it was open to challenge in appeal under section 18. The learned District Judge thus committed an obvious error in holding that no appeal lay against the order rejecting the review application. No exception, however, can be taken to the learned Judge's view that the appeal against the order of allotment was barred by time. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition Ramesh Chand, respondent No 3, vacated the shop and it was allotted to Sri Vinod Kumar. No exception, however, can be taken to the learned Judge's view that the appeal against the order of allotment was barred by time. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition Ramesh Chand, respondent No 3, vacated the shop and it was allotted to Sri Vinod Kumar. An application was moved, on 14-5-1976 to implead Vinod Kumar as a respondent to the petition. Notice was issued on this application and Sri R.P. Tripathi put in appearance on behalf of Vinod Kumar. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Vinod Kumar. I have today allowed the application to implead Vinod Kumar as a party to the writ petition. No one appeared before me today to contest this petition on behalf of Vinod Kumar. 4. The petition is allowed. The order of the learned District Judge holding that no appeal lay against the order rejecting the review application is quashed. The learned District Judge shall readmit the appeal to its original number and decide it on merits. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.