JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 25-5-79 passed by the learned Additional District Judge allowing a revision u/s 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority under that Act for disposing of various applications and objections which shall be referred to hereunder. 2. These are the relevant facts. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Pramod Kumar and Surendra Kumar moved an application u/s 16 of the aforesaid Act for the allotment of the permises in dispute, of which the Respondent No. 3 Shrimati Radha Rani is the landlady. The landlady also made an application for release of the accommodation in dispute in her favour. Pursuant to these applications, an enquiry was caused to be made as to whether there was any vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector reported that the permises were vacant, but recently the permises had again been let out without an order of allotment. 3. The Petitioner appeared before the Prescribed Authority and filed an objection claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act on the allegation that he was in occupation of the permises from before the 5th of July 1976 as a tenant with the consent of the landlady. The Prescribed Authority had initially declared a vacancy, but subsequently, upon the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was in occupation of the disputed premises since before 1976 and that, therefore, there was no vacancy. Accordingly by an order dated 23-4-77, the Prescribed Authority rejected the applications for allotment and for release of the premises and by the same order, however, regularised the possession of the Petitioner. 4. Against the aforesaid composite order of the Prescribed Authority, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Pramod Kumar and Surendra Kumar filed a revision u/s 18 of the aforesaid Act, which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Agra, by the order dated 25-5-79 which is the subject of challenge in this petition. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the revision filed by the said Respondents was incompetent in law inasmuch as no revision was provided under the aforesaid Act against an order merely regularising possession of the tenant u/s 14 of the aforesaid Act. There is no substance in this submission. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the revision filed by the said Respondents was incompetent in law inasmuch as no revision was provided under the aforesaid Act against an order merely regularising possession of the tenant u/s 14 of the aforesaid Act. There is no substance in this submission. The revision of the said Respondents was directed against a composite order by which not only had the possession of the Petitioner been held to be lawful u/s 14 of the aforesaid Act, but the application of the aforesaid Respondents u/s 16 of the Act for the allotment of the premises had been rejected. There can be little doubt that a revision does lie against the order rejecting an application for allotment filed u/s 16 of the aforesaid Act. The revision filed by the Respondents was, therefore, clearly maintainable in law. 6. Counsel for the Respondents next submitted that u/s 18 of the Act, the revisional court could not go into findings of fact. I do not agree. The question whether there was a vacancy or not, and the premises could be allotted in favour of Respondents Pramod Kumar and Surendra Kumar was a matter relating to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, and consequently, a finding given thereon was open to review u/s 18 of the aforesaid Act--see 1979 U.P. Rent Control Cases 490. There is, therefore, no substance in this point either. I may add that the trial court had rejected a vital document, namely, the certified copy of the extract of the death register pertaining to death of the stamp vendor Phool Chand which had been filed along with the affidavit of the son of Phool Chand on the ground that the same was not admissible in evidence, not having been proved by producing the witness concerned. This was clearly wrong. The document in question had been duly proved on affidavit. The Act permits giving of evidence on affidavits. The revisional court was, therefore, justified in taking the view that the extracts of the death register was admissible in evidence and the same was illegally disregarded by the trial court. Rejecting a document as inadmissible when in law that document is admissible in evidence, certainly amounts to acting with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. For all these reasons, I find no substance in the second point too urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Rejecting a document as inadmissible when in law that document is admissible in evidence, certainly amounts to acting with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. For all these reasons, I find no substance in the second point too urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel contended in the end that the extract of death register could not be proved except by the affidavit of a party. He was, however, unable to substantiate this argument with reference to any provision of law or authority. As mentioned above, the Act expressly permits giving of evidence on affidavits and it does not confine this to the affidavits of the parties alone. Affidavits of any person having knowledge of the facts in issue can be received in evidence. 8. There are no merits in this petition which is consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order is hereby vacated.