ORDER S.D. Agarwal, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The property in dispute is 345, Lala Bazar Almora, the building was formerly known as Debating Club and now as Desh Bhakti press. 3. Sri Tara Chand Joshi and Jagannath Joshi were originally the owners of the said property. In December, 1974, the property was sold to Kishori Lal, opposite party No. 4. Initially the property was let out to the District Congress Party, Almora. In 1969 when there was a split in the Congress Party, it came into the possession of the District Congress Committee (Organisation) which continued in its possession. On 10th Tune, 1976 one Dharma Nand Pandey who was the President of the District Congress Committee (Organisation) joined the Congress (I) on 11th July, 1976. Dharma Nand Pandey moved an application before the Prescribed Authority that the Congress (Organisation) has vacated the premises and now if may be allotted to the Congress (I). When this application was moved, then the landlord Kishori Lal moved three applications one after another on 22-7-76, 29th July, 1976 and 2-8-76 Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition for release. 4. In pursuance of the application made by Dharma Nand Pandey, the Rent Control Inspector on 10th Aug., 1978, (1976) submitted a report that in view of the fact that an application has been made by Dharma Nand Pandey the premises is vacant. In spite of this report the prescribed authority by an order dated 21-2-77 held that the property is not vacant as the possession has not been handed over by the Congress (Organisation) to the landlord and, as such, rejected the release application. Against the order dated 21-2-77 a revision was filed by the landlord. The revision came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Almora. The Additional District Judge relying merely on the report of the Inspector held the property to be vacant and allowed the release application. He did not at all consider the bona fide need of the landlord. The order is completely silent on this question. Tire revisional order was passed on 16th Aug., 1978. The Additional District Judge relying merely on the report of the Inspector held the property to be vacant and allowed the release application. He did not at all consider the bona fide need of the landlord. The order is completely silent on this question. Tire revisional order was passed on 16th Aug., 1978. It may further be noted here that the Congress (Organisation) merged with the Janta Party in May, 1977. The revisional order was passed without impleading the Janta Party as a party to the revision. 5. As soon as Janta Party came to know of this release order, they first of all filed an application for regularising their possession on 16th Aug., 1978. This application for regularisation was rejected merely on the ground that the property had already been released in favour of the landlord on 16th Aug., 1978, and as such the regularisation application was not maintainable. Thereafter on 22-11-1978 the Prescribed Authority passed an order under Section 16 (4) of the Act, directing the Janta Party, Almora to vacate the premises and hand over possession to Kishor Lal, landlord. On receipt of this order the petitioner Janta Party moved a review application under Section 16 (5) of the Act before the District Magistrate. No final orders have been passed on this review application and is still pending before the District Magistrate. After filing the review application the petitioner again filed a revision before the District Judge, Almora against the order dated 22-11-78 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. This revision again came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Almora who rejected the revision mainly on the ground that the order of release dated 16th Aug., 1978 had become final and since the petitioner did not challenge the order, no relief can be given to the petitioners. The Additional District Judge further held that no revision lay against the order dated 22-11-3978, and as such, the revision was dismissed on 29th Mar., 1979. 6. After the revision was rejected another order was passed by the District Magistrate on 18th Apr., 1979 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. 7. There being no other remedy available to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present petition in this Honble court challenging the orders dated 16th Aug., 1978. 18th November, 1978, 22nd Nov., 1978, 29th Mar., 1979 and 18th Apr., 1979. 8. 7. There being no other remedy available to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present petition in this Honble court challenging the orders dated 16th Aug., 1978. 18th November, 1978, 22nd Nov., 1978, 29th Mar., 1979 and 18th Apr., 1979. 8. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that once a review application was filed by the petitioners under Section 16 (5) of the Act, no order for eviction could have been passed against the petitioners. Secondly the order under Section 6 (4) was a revisable order and the view taken by the Additional District Judge is manifestly erroneous. It was thirdly urged that the release order dated 16th Aug., 1978 is patently erroneous as there was no vacancy, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and the court has not found any bona fide need in favour of the Ian lord. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord has mainly urged that the order of release dated 16th Aug., 1978 has become final, and as such, no relief can be granted in the present petition. From the facts on record it is apparent that the petitioner, District Janta Party is in possession of the premises because, otherwise, no question would have arisen of issuing orders under Section 16 (4) of the Act directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. 10. Since the petitioner is in possession, he availed of the correct remedy of filing a review application under Section 16 (5) of the Act before the District Magistrate. The said review application is still pending. Under the powers conferred under Section 16 (5) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the District Magistrate to examine as to whether the order of release has been passed in accordance with the provisions of cl. (a) or (b) of sub-cl. (1) of Section 16 of the Act. It is open to the District Magistrate to examine afresh as to whether there was in fact a vacancy or not and in case there is a vacancy, as to whether the release order has been correctly passed. Once a review application has been filed, it was the duty of the District Magistrate to have decided the review application and he could not have issued order for ejectment under Section 16 (4) of the Act. Once a review application has been filed, it was the duty of the District Magistrate to have decided the review application and he could not have issued order for ejectment under Section 16 (4) of the Act. In this view of the matter the orders passed by the District Magistrate directing the eviction of the petitioners on 22-11-78 aid 18-4-1979 are wholly without jurisdiction and they are liable to be set aside. 11. Since the review' application is pending before the District Magistrate, the matter should have gone to the District Magistrate for the decision of the review application. But since I find that the order dated 16th Aug., 1978 releasing the accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 4 is a manifestly erroneous order, it is in the interests of justice to set aside that order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are in possession of the premises. No opportunity of hearing was given to them before passing the release order. The declaration of vacancy also is based on no evidence. The report of Rent Control Inspector does not establish vacancy at all. The view taken by the Additional District Judge in his order dated 16th Aug.. 1978 is manifestly erroneous on this question. Even if it is held that there was a vacancy in the eye of law, then, too, unless the Additional District Judge had come to the conclusion that the property in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord as laid down in Section 16 (2) of the Act, he could not have released the accommodation in favour of the landlord. The Additional District Judge had not considered this aspect at all. He has merely released the accommodation after holding it to be vacant. In the circumstances, the order of the Additional District Judge dated 16th Aug., 1978 is liable to be quashed. It will be open to the petitioners to apply before the Additional District Judge to be made a party to the revision and file such additional evidence as he desires in accordance with law. 12. In the result, I allow the petition, quash the order dated 16-8-78 as well as the orders dated 18-11-78 and 18-4-79. It will be open to the petitioners to apply before the Additional District Judge to be made a party to the revision and file such additional evidence as he desires in accordance with law. 12. In the result, I allow the petition, quash the order dated 16-8-78 as well as the orders dated 18-11-78 and 18-4-79. The matter is remanded to the Additional District Judge for deciding the revision No. 2 of 1977 in accordance with law after impleading and affording reasonable opportunity to the parties for producing such additional evidence as the parties desire in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.