JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order dated 14-4-1987 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowing the revision under Section 18 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, of the landlord against the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner dated 25-11-1982. 2. Before this petition was admitted Mr. B.D. Mandhyan has accepted notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 and was granted time to file the counter-affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties and as provided under the second proviso to Rule 2 of the Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. I think it desirable that the petition should be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. Facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that the petitioner was allotted the accommodation in dispute by order dated 25-11-1982 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The respondent landlord, preferred a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Kanpur which was disposed of by the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur by the impugned order. 4. I have heard Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. Smt. Poonam Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the revision filed by the respondent landlady was not within time and as such order passed by the Revisional Court is bad on that ground alone. 6. Mr. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary submitted that it is the date of knowledge from which the limitation has to be counted and according to the facts as stated in the order, the revision was within time from the date of the knowledge. Even if, I ignore the said arguments raised on behalf of the respondents, the dates mentioned in the order of the Revisional Court amply proves that the revision itself was presented within time from the date of the order i.e. within 15 days and such no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was necessary. The order of allotment was admittedly passed on 25-11-1982 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The order of allotment was admittedly passed on 25-11-1982 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. An application for certified copy of the said order was moved by the Respondent No. 3 on 6-12-1982 i.e. before the expiry of 15 days and the copy was reported to be ready on 2-2-1983 and the revision was filed on 7-2-1983. The time taken for issuance of the copy of the order i.e. from 6-12-1982 to 2-12-1983 has to be excluded. Thus, the revision was filed within 15 days from the dated of the order which is the period of limitation prescribed for presenting the revision and since the revision was barred by time, no application under Section 5 was necessary and in my opinion the order passed by the Revisional Court holding the revision to be within the limitation is liable to be sustained. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also condoned that the order of the Revisional Court is bad on merits also inasmuch as the allotment order was passed after the expiry of three days from the date of notification and the Revisional Court committed an error in setting aside the said allotment order, on the contrary the Counsel for the respondents contended that the vacancy was notified on 22-11-1982 and the allotment order was passed on 25-11-1982 i.e. before the date of expiry of three days from the date of enquiry and as such the order of allotment was bad on that account. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner falls to be ground and is not liable to be sustained. 8 In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.