JUDGMENT (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. During the pendency of a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') filed by the tenant Sri Jairampuri, the respondent No. 3, directed against the order, dated 18-2-1932 whereunder the premises in dispute had been released in favour of the landlord, the present petitioner, who happens to be one landlord of the premises in dispute tiled an application seeking amendments in the original application tiled under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act putting forward his claim for the release of the accommodation for his personal occupation and use only. The Revising Authority, however, rejected the said application vide the order dated 25-7-1985 and proceeded to heard the revision filed by the tenant on merits which was dismissed on 24-12-1985. (2.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the orders referred to above. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. (3.) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. THE premises in dispute had been let out to Sri Jairampuri, the respondent No. 1. An application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute for residential purpose of Sri Mahendra Kumar Nagalia was filed by the landlords including the petitioner who was applicant No. 6 in the release application. In the application, it had been asserted that Jairampuri, the tenant had constructed a house in the name of his wife Smt. Vidyawati near the premises in dispute in the year 1970 which was a double storey building, Smt. Vidyawati had died in the year 1972 leaving behind Jairampuri and his son Sriniwas and unmarried daughters as her only heir and legal representatives. THE accommodation aforesaid was more than sufficient to meat the requirement of the tenant. It was also asserted that the premises in dispute was bona fidely and genuinely required for being utilised for satisfying the urgent need of applicant No. 1, Sri Mahendra Kumar Nagalia. THE claim of the landlords for the release of the accommodation in dispute was contested by the tenant. It was also asserted that the premises in dispute was bona fidely and genuinely required for being utilised for satisfying the urgent need of applicant No. 1, Sri Mahendra Kumar Nagalia. THE claim of the landlords for the release of the accommodation in dispute was contested by the tenant. During the pendency of the matter regarding the release, the present petitioner moved an application on 22-10-1981 praying for deleting his name from the array of the applicants. Later on he moved another application on 23-12-1981 objecting to the release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia asserting that neither it could be released in his favour nor could be allotted to any one else. (4.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the question relating to the accrual of vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute and vide the order dated 18-12-1981 declared the premises in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. Under the same order after declaring the vacancy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed for inviting the applications seeking the allotment fixing 23-12-1981 for considering the matter relating to the release of the accommodation in dispute. It appears that since the accommodation in dispute had been declared vacant in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer first proceeded to consider and dispose of the application seeking release of the premises in dispute which application was allowed holding the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia to be genuine and bona fide. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it appears that the objection preferred by the petitioner were rejected indicating that firstly, he had withdrawn from the proceedings and secondly, on the ground that except him none of the other co- landlords had objected to the genuineness of the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia justifying the release in his favour and thirdly even if, there had been more co-landlords, the release could be granted even in respect of one. It appears that the tenant, present respondent No. 3, challenged the order of release by filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act. In the aforesaid revision the present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 6. It appears that the tenant, present respondent No. 3, challenged the order of release by filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act. In the aforesaid revision the present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 6. It was in the aforesaid revision that the petitioner had moved the aforesaid application seeking amendment of the release application, The revising authority, while rejecting the application seeking amendment in the original application for release observed that the amendments sought for would change the entire case and will re-open a controversy which had been finally settled and the amendment sought for was highly prejudicial to the interest of Mahendra Kumar Natalia, while disposing of the revision the revising authority endorsed the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the accrual of the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute. It was further held that the construction of a house by the son of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia could not affect the claim of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia for the release who was a heart patient as found by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. (5.) FROM the facts noticed hereinabove, it will be apparent that the petitioner, had not filed any revision against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granting release of the accommodation in dispute. It was the tenant who had challenged the aforesaid order. As indicated by this Court in its decision in the case of Ved Prakash v. VII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, reported in 1993 (1) ARC 442, in a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the lis is confined between the District Magistrate and the landlord in the matter of release contemplated under Section 16 of the Act, As a respondent in the revision filed by the tenant, the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the finding in regard to the accrual of vacancy. Further, he could not as a respondent in the aforesaid revision get re-opened the dispute in regard to the grant of release in favour of any particular co-landlord. (6.) SO far as the amendments sought for by the petitioner in the release application are concerned, suffice it to say that the order passed by the revising authority in this connection does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity. (6.) SO far as the amendments sought for by the petitioner in the release application are concerned, suffice it to say that the order passed by the revising authority in this connection does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity. In the revision filed by the tenant, there could be no justification foe permitting the present petitioner to raise a dispute which was nothing else but a dispute inter se between the co-landlords. Such a dispute was obviously beyond the scope of the revision filed by the tenant. It may be noticed in this connection that under the provisions of the Act, in and proceeding for release of building under occupation of tenant contemplated under Section 21 of the Act where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependant on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application for release contemplated under the aforesaid provision can be entertained. Such a prohibition stands clearly prescribed in Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) of the Act. Further, the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Act provides that in the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. It seems to me that such a tenant who has ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy as contemplated under Section 12 (c) of the Act cannot be heard to object to the release of the building as claimed in the release application filed under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and the principal/policy of restraint/ prohibition envisaged under Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) of the Act could be safely extended to cover even such a tenant. (7.) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, Jairampuri, the tenant therefore, having remained unsuccessful in getting upset the finding in regard to the accrual of the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute in view of the requirement contemplated under Section 12 (3) of the Act having been found to have been established could not be deemed to object against the application for release. IN this view of the matter also, the amendments sought for by the petitioner in the revisional proceedings initiated by the tenant had to be treated as beyond the scope of the revision. (8.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances brought on record and the findings returned by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which stand affirmed by the revising authority, no justifiable ground Is made out for any interference in the impugned orders, white exorcising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.