JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur 1. The writ petition is being disposed "of finally at the admission stage in accordance with Chapter 22 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court as the parties have exchanged affidavits. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 27-5-1989 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control revision no. 46 of 1983. 2. The dispute relates to shop No 651 Subzi Mandi, of which panchayati Dhara Phira Hediyan, Jwalapur is the owner and landlord. One Rampal Singh moved an application on 3-8-1981 for allotments of the shop on the ground that the same was in the tenancy of Pyare Lal Sharma, but he had illegally sublet the same to Krishna Lal Khurana (respondent no. 2) and as such, the shop was legally vacant. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report after inspecting the shop. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order dated 5-7-1982 declaring vacancy and invited applications for allotment on 16-7-1982. The landlord moved an application for release which was rejected by the order dated 17-12-1982. Since this order was not challenged by the landlord, the same became final. It appears that as many as 13 persons applied for allotment of the shop in their favour and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order dated 10-6-1983 allotting the shop in favour of the petitioner Sushil Kumar Gupta. The allotment order was challenged by three persons namely Krishna Lal Khurana respondent no 2, Pyare Lal Sharma and Ram Gopal Sharma by filing three separate revisions. The revision filed by Krisban Lal Khurana has been allowed by the impugned order and it has been held that the shop is not vacant and respondent no. 2 was the tenant of the shop by virtue of section 14 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sushil Kumar Gupta in whose favour the allotment order had been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has filed the present writ petition. The first contention of Shri Vinod Swarup learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 had filed revision against the order dated 10-6-1983 passed by R. C. and E.O. by which shop had been allotted in favour of the petitioner and in this revision, it was not open to the Addl. The first contention of Shri Vinod Swarup learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 had filed revision against the order dated 10-6-1983 passed by R. C. and E.O. by which shop had been allotted in favour of the petitioner and in this revision, it was not open to the Addl. District Judge to go into the correctness or validity of the order dated 5-7-1982 declaring vacancy. The impugned order shows that the learned District Judge has, after appraisal of evidence, held that Kishan Lal Khurana respondent no. 2 was in possession of the accommodation as a sub-tenant but with the consent of the landlord and as such, he was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Act. After arriving on this finding, learned Addl. District Judge held that the order of R.C. and E.O. dated 5-7-82 declaring vacancy, was, therefore, illegal. After the allotment order had been passed on 10-6-1983 in favour of petitioner, respondent no. 2 filed a revision against the said order under section 18 of the Act. In the memorandum of revision, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition, it is described as a revision under section 18 against the order dated 10-6-83 of R.C. and E. O. The Scheme of the Act does not contemplate a revision against an order declaring vacancy, section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by the final order passed under section 16 or 19 may prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of the grounds enumerated in the section. Therefore, it is clear that no revision lies against the order declaring vacancy. 3. In Ganpat Roy v. Addl. District Magistrate, AIR 1985 SC 1635 , it was held as follows in para 12 of the reports "Even in the case of an application for allotment, it is doubtful whether a tenant whose objections to notification of a deemed vacancy have been negatived and thereafter the vacancy has been ordered to be notified could be permitted to reagitate the same contentions because such contentions would be barred by principles analogous of res judicata. In such an event, it would be difficult to say that he can exercise his right of review on the ground that there was no vacancy. This would apply equally where an order of release is made. In such an event, it would be difficult to say that he can exercise his right of review on the ground that there was no vacancy. This would apply equally where an order of release is made. Further, the revision which is provided for under section 18 is against an order of allotment or release and not against a notification of vacancy and a issue, which was concluded earlier and on the basis of the finding on which the District Magistrate had proceeded to allot or release the premises, cannot be reagitated in revision." The above observation of Honourable Supreme Court shows that the correctness of the order declaring vacancy cannot be examined in the revision filed against the order of allotment even at the instance of a tenant whose objections to notification of deemed vacancy have been rejected and subsequently vacancy has been declared- In Hair Prasad Verma v. IIIrd A.D. J., 1984 (1) ARC 65, it has been held by Honourable R. M. Sahai, J. that no revision lies against the order declaring vacancy. Similar view was taken by Honourable S. D. Agarwala, J. in Amar Nath Thakur v. Vinod Kumar Sharma, 1988 (2) ARC 57. The question as to whether the correctness of the order declaring vacancy can be examined in a revision filed against the final order of allotment was recently considered by Honourable S. G. Veema, J. in Raghunath Prasad v. Smt Krishna Dixit, 1991 ALJ 91, and it was held that it is not open to the learned District Judge to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order declaring vacancy in a revision filed under section 18 of the Act against an order of allotment. In this view of the matter, learned District Judge has erred in examining the validity of the order declaring vacancy and in holding that the order passed by the R. C. and E O on 5-7-82 directing the notification of vacancy was illegal. 4. Shri K. M. Dayal learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no 2 has submitted that it is open to the learned District Judge to examine the correctness of the order declaring vacancy in a revision filed against the order of allotment as the Act does not contemplate any appeal or revision against an order declaring vacancy itself. 4. Shri K. M. Dayal learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no 2 has submitted that it is open to the learned District Judge to examine the correctness of the order declaring vacancy in a revision filed against the order of allotment as the Act does not contemplate any appeal or revision against an order declaring vacancy itself. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a decision given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishna Gopal Sharma v. IVth A.D.J, 1990 (1) ARC 561. In this case neither this question was raised nor there is a decision that in a revision under section 18 of the Act against a find order of allotment the correctness of the order declaring vacancy can also be examined. Therefore, the case cited is not an authority for the proposition advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. The Jaw on the point seems to be well settled by the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Ganpat Roy's case (supra) and a series of decisions of our Court. It may also be noticed here that Kishan Lal Khurana respondent no. 2 moved an application on 19-8-82 before the R. C. and E O praying that his possession may be regularised, but this application was rejected on 1-9- 1982 and it was directed that further proceedings may be taken in accordance with the order dated 5-7-82 declaring vacancy. Copy of the application and the order have been filed as Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. The respondent no. 2 did not challenge the order dated 1-9-82 which became final 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 next contended that order declaring vacancy is a jurisdictional fact inasmuch as R.C. and E.O. gets jurisdiction to make an order of allotment only after declaring vacancy and therefore, in a revision against an order of allotment it will be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the correctness of the order declaring vacancy, this question has been considered by Division Bench of our Court in Hari Swarup v. R C and E O.. 1982 UPRCC 681, wherein it was held that the finding recorded while declaring vacancy is not a finding on a jurisdictional fact and the same cannot be interfered with in a revision under section 18 of the Act treating it like a First Appeal wherein it is permitted to reappraise the evidence and reconsider the findings of fact on their merits. It was further held that the finding of the District Magistrate including the finding on the question of vacancy would be liable to be adjudged by the District Judge in a revision only on the grounds mentioned in section 18. It is doubtful whether the view taken by Division Bench that the finding on the question of vacancy can be adjudged by the District Judge on the grounds mentioned in section 18 will still hold good after the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Ganpat Roy's case (supra). However, I am examining the correctness of the order passed by learned District Judge from the angle also. 6. Krishna Lal Khurana, respondent no. 2 never set up a case before the R.C. and E. O. that he was sub-tenant of the shop in dispute. On the contrary his case was that he was carrying on business in partnership with the original tenant Pyare Lal Sharma In his objection dated 24-9-91 to the report of the Rent Control Inspector (Annexure 2-A to the writ petition), it was said that the report of Inspector to tike effect that he was a sub-tenant was wrong and it was pleaded that he was carrying on business in partnership with Pyare Lal Sharma. In his affidavit dated 19-12-81 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) respondent no. 2 slated in para-2 and 4 thereof that he was carrying on business in partnership with Pyare Lal Sharma for the last 20-25 years in the shop in dispute. In para-5, he denied the shop had been sub-let. Pyare Lal Sharma in his affidavit dated 16-12-81 filed before the R.C and EO. (Annexure 3-A to the writ petition) stated that he had never sub-let the shop to Kishan Lal Khurana and the latter was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. The R.C. and E.O. disbelieved the case set up by respondent no. Pyare Lal Sharma in his affidavit dated 16-12-81 filed before the R.C and EO. (Annexure 3-A to the writ petition) stated that he had never sub-let the shop to Kishan Lal Khurana and the latter was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. The R.C. and E.O. disbelieved the case set up by respondent no. 2 that he was carrying business in partnership with Pyare Lal Sharma in the shop in dispute and holding the case to be one of illegal subletting declared the stop as vacant by order dated 5-7-82. In revision, learned District Judge has also recorded a finding that the case set up by respondent no. 2 regarding carrying on business in partnership with Pyare Lal Sharma was false and could not be relied upon. The record further shows that in revision respondent no. 2 moved an application on 22-8-84 wherein a plea was taken that he was in possession of the shop since 1959 with the consent of the landlord and therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Act and the shop cannot be deemed vacant. Along with this application be filed some papers as additional evidence The petitioner Sushil Kumar Gupta filed objection to the aforesaid application which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition. The learned IVth Additional District Judge, by one word order, allowed the application for filing additional evidence on 25-2-1985 In the impugned judgment the learned District Judge has basically accepted this plea of respondent no 2 which was taken for the first time after the order of notification of vacancy had been passed on 5-7-1982 and which is contrary to the case set up before the R.C. and E. O. The learned Addl District Judge seems to have relied upon the documents which were filed by the respondent no. 2 as additional evidence in revision for holding that he was in possession over the shop in dispute for a long time as a sub-tenant and therefore the implied consent of the landlord can be presumed and he would be entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Act. It is on the basis of this finding that it has been held that the order declaring vacancy is illegal. It is on the basis of this finding that it has been held that the order declaring vacancy is illegal. In my opinion, even if it is held that learned District Judge could examine the correctness of the order declaring vacancy in the revision against the allotment order, he acted wholly beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon Mm by the Act in accepting additional evidence, reappraising the same and recording a finding on a question of fact just like a court of first Appeal Section 18 of the Act mentions the grounds on which a revision can be preferred to the District Judge and the grounds are exactly similar to those of section 115 CPC. The learned District Judge could only examine whether the R.C. and E.O. had exercised his jurisdiction vested in him by law or had failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The procedure adopted by learned Addl. Distt. Judge in accepting and reappraising additional evidence is wholly illegal. He has accepted a new plea of respondent no. 2 which was not set up before the R.C. and E.O. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge even on merits is wholly illegal and beyond the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon him by section 18 of the Act. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and order dated 27-5-1989 cannot be sustained in law- The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 27-5-1989 passed by IVth Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Revision No 346 of 1983 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled do his costs. Petition allowed.