JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against on order passed by Respondent No. 1 dismissing the Petitioner's revision application u/s 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The accommodation in dispute bears municipal No. 88, Nala Fatehganj, Lucknow. On 12.05.1982 one Uma Nand Dwivedi moved the rent control authorities that the premise in question has fallen vacant due to the death of Smt. Ram Kali, who was the previous tenant. One Om Prakash Sharma who claimed to be sitting tenant filed objections a true copy of the same is annexure-1 to the writ petition. On the other hand Respondent No. 3 applied for the release of the accommodation. 2. Respondent No. 2 allowed the release application of Respondent No. 3 holding that the accommodation was vacant due to the death of Smt. Ram Kali. It was also held by Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner is not the legal heir and representative of Smt. Ram Kali. Aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No. 2 a revision application u/s 18 of the Act was preferred before the District Judge, Lucknow. The revision application against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 filed by Om Prakash Sharma was decided by Respondent No. 1. This order is annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the said order this petition has been filed. 3. In this writ petition I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and they had advanced elaborate arguments on various connected and inter connected questions. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the controversy between the parties has unnecessarily been elongate- definite courts below by parties being allowed to file affidavits at every stage of the proceedings. The short question that awaits consideration is whether the accommodation in question became vacant on the death of Smt. Ram Kali and the same was available for being released at the instance of Respondent No. 3. A perusal of annexure 1 indicates that the specific case of the Petitioner is that Smt. Ram Kali, wife of Kripa Shanker was the tenant of the premises in question. Annexure-6 to the writ petition indicates that Smt. Ram Kali died on 2-5-1981 and that document contains an admission made by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal that Smt. Ram Kali has left Om Prakash Sharma, son of late Kripa Shanker. Annexure-6 to the writ petition indicates that Smt. Ram Kali died on 2-5-1981 and that document contains an admission made by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal that Smt. Ram Kali has left Om Prakash Sharma, son of late Kripa Shanker. Annexure-7 is the affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal filed in support of Annexure-6. The Petitioner's case is that he is Kripa Shakers son by his first wife and Smt. Ram Kali was the second wife of Kripa Shanker. It is not in dispute that Smt. Ram Kali died issueless. On these facts it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that he is the heir of Kripa Shanker and has been living in the accommodation in question during the life time of Smt. Ram Kali and, therefore, he is an heir within the meaning of Section 3 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The said section is reproduced below: 3. Unless the context otherwise requires (a) Tenant in relation to a building, means a person, by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death (1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him, in the building at the time of his death. 4. A perusal of the record indicates that during proceedings in the case at a late stage the Petitioner attempted to set up the plea that the accommodation in dispute was in the tenancy of Kripa Shanker. A perusal of annexure Clause l to the rejoinder-affidavit indicates that an affidavit was filed by Om Prakash Sharma that the deceased father of the deponent, namely, Kripa Shanker was the tenant of the premises in question. Of course, this plea was rejected by both the courts below but on account of this case being put up at a late stage a good deal of documentary evidence has been filed with the result that the questions which should not have been permitted to be raised were raised. At this stage it would be appropriate to see that the Respondent No. 2 was not justified in accepting this affidavit on the date of the judgment which affidavit set up a case which was no where indicated in the pleadings of the Petitioner. It is on account of admission of this affidavit that there has been so much delay in the disposal of the case and the record has been unnecessarily became voluminous. It is on account of admission of this affidavit that there has been so much delay in the disposal of the case and the record has been unnecessarily became voluminous. I have no hesitation in saying that the trial court was not justified in permitting the Petitioner to set up a plea for the first time that Kripa Shanker was the tenant in the premises in question and the plea was rightly rejected by Respondent No. 1. 5. Now the sole question that survives for consideration is whether the Petitioner is an heir and is entitled to benefit of Section 3 of the Act. It is very much to be regretted that Respondent No. 1 did not address itself to the question as to who would inherit the tenancy rights in case of death of Smt. Ram Kali. Instead of that the court's below unnecessarily entered into irrelevant considerations. Smt. Ram Kali died on 02.05.1981. It is not in dispute that tenancy rights are heritable. In the instant case the tenancy rights of Smt. Ram Kali would be governed by Hindu Succession Act. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set up in Section 16. The section further provides that the interest shall devolve on sons and daughters of the deceased and in their absence upon the heirs of the husband as provided by Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 16 of the said Act indicates the order of succession and the manner of distribution. In this background, it was the duty of the first Respondent to enquire whether the Petitioner can be held to be the heir of Smt. Ram Kali regard being had to the provisions of Section 15(1) and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with Section 3 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. Since this aspect of the matter has not been enquired into and no finding has been recorded by the first Respondent it is necessary to set aside the order passed by him and direct him to decide the controversy between the parties proceeding on the basis that Smt. Ram Kali was the tenant of the accommodation. 6. Mr. Since this aspect of the matter has not been enquired into and no finding has been recorded by the first Respondent it is necessary to set aside the order passed by him and direct him to decide the controversy between the parties proceeding on the basis that Smt. Ram Kali was the tenant of the accommodation. 6. Mr. H.S. Sahai, learned Counsel for the Respondents strenuously contended that the jurisdiction exercisable u/s 18 of the Act is confined only to the question of jurisdiction and since the rent control authorities had jurisdiction to decide whether there was vacancy and whether the accommodation could be released in favor of Respondent No. 3, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction was illegally exercised merely because a wrong decision was taken by Respondent No. 1. In support of his contention he relied upon is Sher Singh (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1978 SC 1341 Hari Swarup v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad 1981 AWC 890 and Kumari Madhu Saxena v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Rampur 1983 ARC 84. The principle deducible from all these decisions is that no interference is justified u/s 18 of the Act in case the order passed by the authorities concerned does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. 7. In the instant case the question whether the accommodation is vacant or not is a jurisdictional fact and has to be enquired into by the authority concerned so that the accommodation be either allotted in favor of some one or released in favor of the landlord. No authority by incorrectly deciding a jurisdictional fact can assume jurisdiction which it does not possess. From the; narration of facts set out above it is obvious that the principal question that awaited consideration of the authorities was whether the Petitioner was an heir of Smt. Ram Kali who could succeed to her tenancy rights in the event of her death. A finding on this question is absolutely necessary for the proper decision of the case and as this important aspect of the case has been ignored it would follow that the authority concerned acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 8. In exercise of powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of this Court is not to substitute its own decision in place of decision rendered by the Court below. 8. In exercise of powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of this Court is not to substitute its own decision in place of decision rendered by the Court below. The jurisdiction of this Court is confined only to point out error committed by the Court below and then direct it to decide the case in accordance with law. For this reason instead of deciding the controversy in the writ petition, 1 direct that the revision application filed by the Petitioner be decided afresh by Respondent No. 1 in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The Respondent No. 1 shall hear the revision application after affording an opportunity to both the parties and will also afford an opportunity to Respondent No. 3 to explain his admission contained in Annexure 6 and 7 to the writ petition. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 11.02.1986. He will, however, decide the case within three months of the receipt of the order. In the circumstances of the case the costs of this Court shall, however, be borne by the parties.