JUDGMENT : A.N. Verma, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were challenged on the ground that the accommodation in dispute is a lodging house and that consequently, the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable. Both the courts below have held that the accommodation in dispute has not been proved to be a lodging house. 2. These are the relevant facts: The accommodation in dispute is a house No. 11 B. K. Benerji Marg, Allahabad. Earlier, the husband of the Petitioner Sri Raghavendra Pratap Singh was the owner. He got the house released for occupation by him and the members of his family. Thereafter, one Sri V.P. Rastogi was permitted to occupy the accommodation in dispute. Sri V. P. Rastogi vacated the accommodation. Applications were made by various individuals for allotment of the accommodation on the ground that the accommodation had fallen vacant with the exit of Sri V. P. Rastogi. The Respondent No. 3 Sri Mani Shanker Pandey was also one of such applicants. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the accommodation was vacant, over-ruling the objections of the landlady that the accommodation was a lodging house exempt from the operation of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. After notifying the vacancy the accommodation was allotted to the Respondent No. 3, The Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that both the courts below have gone wrong in taking the view that the accommodation in dispute was not a lodging house and that the same was not outside the purview of the Act. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that there is no force in this petition. Lodging houses as such are not exempt from the class of buildings which has been specifically excluded from the operation of the Act u/s 2 of the aforesaid Act. However, u/s 3(a) of the aforesaid Act occupant of a room in a lodging house is not to be treated as tenant. Lodging houses as such are not exempt from the class of buildings which has been specifically excluded from the operation of the Act u/s 2 of the aforesaid Act. However, u/s 3(a) of the aforesaid Act occupant of a room in a lodging house is not to be treated as tenant. This is very different from saying that a lodging house is exempt from the operation of the Act. The view of the court, therefore, that a lodging house is not exempt from the operation of the Act appears to be correct. 5. Besides the observation of the courts below that a lodging house is not exempt as such from the operation of the Act, it has further been found that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the accommodation in dispute is in fact a lodging house. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has placed reliance upon various documents demonstrating that the accommodation in dispute was in occupation of regular tenants and not in occupation of who may be described as customers of a hotel or lodging house. The finding of the courts below is based upon material which was admissible and relevant and is, therefore, not open to review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the observations made in the judgment are likely to affect the proceedings which were pending between the Petitioner and certain other individuals in which the Petitioner has claimed that the accommodation in dispute is a lodging house and (sic) any decision given in this case will be binding only between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 and would not affect any litigation which may be going on between the Petitioner and others.